From Tiberias, with Love: A Collection of Tiberian Hasidism. Volume 2: R. Abraham ha-Kohen of Kalisk 9781644694572

Citation preview

From Tiberias, With Love

A Collection of Tiberian Hasidism

VOLUME 2

R. ABRAHAM HA-KOHEN OF KALISK

From Tiberias, With Love: A Collection of Tiberian Hasidism Annotated, translated, and edited by: Aubrey L. Glazer & Nehemia Polen 7 volumes in this Panui Series From Tiberias, With Love: A Collection of Tiberian Hasidism R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk (volume 1) From Tiberias, With Love: A Collection of Tiberian Hasidism R. Avraham ha-Kohen of Kalisk (volume 2) From Tiberias, With Love: A Collection of Tiberian Hasidism Letters of Love of the Igrot Qodesh (volume 3) From Tiberias, With Love: A Collection of Tiberian Hasidism R. Tzvi Hirsch of Smotritch (volume 4) From Tiberias, With Love: A Collection of Tiberian Hasidism Re-readings of Tiberian Hasidism (volume 5) From Tiberias, With Love: A Collection of Tiberian Hasidism Mystical Music of Niggun in Tiberian Hasidism (volume 6) From Tiberias, With Love: A Collection of Tiberian Hasidism A Teacher’s Guide with Curriculum for Conscious Community (volume 7)

From Tiberias, With Love

A Collection of Tiberian Hasidism

VOLUME 2

R. ABRAHAM HA-KOHEN OF KALISK Edited by AUBREY L. GLAZER

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019956438 Copyright © 2020 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved. Book design by Lapiz Digital Services. Cover design by Steve Stivers & Aubrey L. Glazer. Published by Academic Studies Press 1577 Beacon Street Brookline, MA 02446, USA [email protected] www. academicstudiespress.com

Support future Panui publications: c/o Jeffrey D. Brandstetter BRANDSTETTER LAW, PC One Market, Spear Tower, 36th Floor San Francisco, CA  94105

‫שׁל֣ ֹום ָ ּבְֽך׃‬ ָ ‫ַאחי ו ְֵר ָ ֑עי אֲדַ ְב ָּרה־ ּ֖נָא‬ ֣ ַ ‫֭ ְל ַמעַן‬ (‫ ח‬:‫)תהילים קכ"ב‬ Dedicated to the global circle of friends and study partners whose selfless devotion, passion, and support for Tiberian Hasidism have made this volume possible: Martin S. Cohen David Greenstein Avraham Avish Shor and the Karlin-Stolin community of Modi‘in Ili‘it Haviva Pedaya Gershon Hundert Zeev Gries Ariel Evan Mayse David Maayan Miles Krassen Ron Margolin Jonathan Garb James Jacobson-Maisels Zvi Leshem Shlomo Dov Rosen Shaul Magid Art Green Daniel C. Matt This volume is dedicated in loving memory of our friend and teacher: Tsippi Kaufman, z”l (1970–2019) ‫ובהתחדש הישן—חדש תוציא‬

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

ix

A. Introduction

1

A Spiritual Portrait of R. Abraham Alexander ha-Kohen of Kalisk Gershon D. Hundert B. Teaching Stories II R. Abraham of Kalisk along the Journey to the Promised Land C. Reader’s Guide

3 67 69 73

1. R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Man Joseph George Weiss

75

2. From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk Ze’ev Gries

90

3. Moving Mezrich: The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel Ariel Evan Mayse

129

4. Theology, Succession, and Social Structure in the Dispute between R. Abraham Kalisker and R. Shne’ur Zalman Nehemia Polen and David Maayan

183

5.  R. Abraham Kalisker’s Critique of Tanya Haviva Pedaya 6. The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker: The Path to Communion as the Legacy of the Bnei ‘Aliyah Ra’aya Haran

204

209

7. Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias: R. Abraham of Kalisk’s Encounter with Reb Nachman of Bratzlav 255 Aubrey L. Glazer D. Chesed le-Abraham (Selected Homilies)

277



279

Translators’ Introduction Aubrey Glazer and Nehemia Polen

Genesis:  [1.1–1.4]. Parshat Lekh Lekha (Genesis 12:1–17:27) [2.1–2.4]. Parshat Chayyei Sarah (Genesis 23:1–25:18)

283 296

Exodus:  [3.1–3.4]. Parshat Mishpatim (Exodus 21:1–24:18) [4.1–4.4]. Parshat Ki Tissa (Exodus 30:11–34:35)

303 313

Numbers:  [5.1–5.4]. Parshat Pinechas (Numbers 25:10 –30:1)

321

Deuteronomy:  [6.1–6.4]. Parshat Va’Etchanan (Deuteronomy 3:23–7:11) [7.1–7.4]. Haftarat Shoftim (Deuteronomy 16:18–21:9) [8.1–8.4]. Haftarat Ki Teitzei (Deuteronomy 21:10–25:19) [9.1–9.4]. Haftarat Ki Tavo (Deuteronomy 26:1–29:8)  [10.1–10.4]. Shabbat Shuva/Rosh ha-Shannah (Deuteronomy 26:1–29:8)

328 333 339 344 352

Glossary358 Index of Names 370 Index of Sources 374 Hebrew Critical Edition 404

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the following individuals, institutions, and publishers for their generous permission to reproduce and translate the following: Gershon D. Hundert, Toward a Biography of R.  Abraham Kalisker (unpublished master’s thesis, Ohio State University, 1971). Haya Paz Cohen at Zalman Shazar Center, Jerusalem, for permission to republish our translation of Ze’ev Gries, “From Myth to Ethos— Outlines for the History of R. Abraham of Kalisk,” first published in Hebrew in Umah Ve-Toldoteiah, vol. 2, ed. Shmuel Ettinger (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1984), 117–146. Ze’ev Gries was especially gracious in reviewing and revising the translation. The Jack, Joseph, and Morton Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem for permission to republish our translation of Ra’aya Haran, “The Doctrine of R.  Abraham Kalisk: The Path to Communion as the Legacy of the B’nei ‘Aliyah,” first published in Tarbiz 66, no. 4 (1996–1997): 517–541.  Ariel Evan Mayse, “Moving Mezrich: The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel” (unpublished paper presented at The Tiberean Hasidism Letters of Love Seminar, Association for Jewish Studies, San Diego, CA, December 18, 2016). Nehemia Polen and David Maayan, “Theology, Succession, and Social Structure in the Dispute between R. Abraham Kalisker and R. Shne’ur Zalman” (unpublished paper presented at The Tiberean Hasidism Letters of Love Seminar, Association for Jewish Studies, San Diego, CA, December 18, 2016).

x

Acknowledgements

Haviva Pedaya, “R.  Abraham Kalisker’s Critique of Tanya” (previously unpublished). Liverpool University Press for the permission to republish Joseph George Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Man,” first published in Studies in East European Jewish Mysticism, ed. David Goldstein (Oxford and New York: Littman Library, 1985), 155–169.

In memoriam of Dr. Tsippi Kauffman (1970–2019) Senior Lecturer in Jewish Thought at Bar Ilan University

Dedicatory Preface

Our hearts were torn upon hearing that Tsippi Kauffman has passed away. Tsippi was a wonderful colleague. We both had the honor of participating with her at several international conferences on aspects of Hasidism. Her presentations and comments brought clarity to complex topics and sometimes fractious discussions. She was an attentive and respectful listener, and her observations were always penetrating, furthering joint efforts at arriving at new syntheses. We are especially honored that Tsippi contributed to our international seminar on Tiberian Hasidism (AJS, San Diego, 2016). Tsippi focused our attention on neglected Hasidic tales, personalities, and practices, uncovering their scholarly implications and wider significance. She combined imaginative reach and astute readings with control of sources and methodological rigor. Her writing is characterized by expository clarity and stylistic grace. Dr. Kauffman wrote her doctorate with Moshe Idel of the Hebrew University, which appeared in Hebrew under the title Be-Khol Derakhekha Daʻehu: Tefisat ha-Elohut veha-ʻAvodah be-Gashmiyut be-Rei’shit ha-Chasidut (In all your ways know Him: The concept of God and corporeal devotion in the early stages of Hasidism [Bar Ilan Press]). Her subsequent work, in journals such as Tarbitz, Da‘at, Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature, Harvard Theological Review, and Journal of Religion ranged widely through Hasidism and beyond, including work on gender.1 1 For a list of her publications see https://scholar.google.co.jp/citations?user=MCR5_ A4AAAAJ&hl=ja.

xii

Dedicatory Preface

One feature of her work that deserves special emphasis is the quality of equilibrium. Endowed with powerful intellectual gifts, Tsippi always deployed those gifts in a balanced and judicious manner. She avoided being overly swayed by fashionable theories, and arrived time and time again at a scholarly position of thoughtful balance and equipoise. In our view, this quality—a certain kind of critical sobriety and judicious temperament—is what makes for enduring scholarship in the long run and gives us absolute confidence that her legacy of deep and thoughtful writing will continue to influence the field for many years to come. These qualities were particularly present in Tsippi’s writing on gender issues in Hasidism. She surveyed earlier work respectfully but critically, and showed how we must move beyond binary characterizations and simplistic formulations, whether motivated by pietistic defensiveness on the one hand, or scholarly skepticism on the other. Drawing upon her own work on the Ba‘al Shem Tov, she challenged us to soften rigid boundaries and engage “a more fluid and flexible space for identity definition” that would “blur binary boundaries of sacred and profane, central and marginal, spirituality and materiality, . . . to make a place for all those seeking closeness to God.” We would do well to pursue her lead of embracing the “Ba’al Shem Tov’s vision and the religious longing for a place where boundaries (including those of gender) fall away.” Tsippi exemplified how academic scholarship can be a calling, a path of moral integrity and spiritual nobility, as well as a courageous quest for truth. In her personal interactions, Tsippi was a model of kindness, generosity, and genuine humility—all while expressing her views with clarity and conviction. We have lost a great friend of Tiberian Hasidism and a noble spirit—chaval al de-avdin! Nehemia Polen and Aubrey L. Glazer 23 Elul 5779/September 23, 2019

A Spiritual Portrait of R. Abraham Alexander ha-Kohen of Kalisk Gershon Hundert (McGill University)1

Abraham ben Alexander of Kalisk was a significant figure in the history of the Hasidic movement. Through his teachings and his actions, he represented some of the more radical aspects of the movement. Since Hasidism was a uniquely Eastern European phenomenon, it is important to begin by outlining the conditions of that area prior to the birth of Hasidism and to discuss some of the reasons for its rapid growth as well. Eastern Europe was generally on the periphery of the major economic, political, and intellectual developments that contributed to the creation of modern society. The appearance of rationalist philosophy, modern capitalism, and modern state forms in Western Europe generally preceded their eventual eastward movement. Because of this, similar

Acknowledgements: Special thanks to the generosity of Gershon David Hundert in granting permission to republish his pioneering scholarship on the Kalisker for this series on Tiberian Hasidism. While selected studies have emerged since the time of this thesis, Hundert’s impeccable scholarship stands the test of time and offers a remarkable portrait of the Kalisker from which all future studies must begin again. 1 Gershon David Hundert, Toward a Biography of R.  Abraham Kalisker (MA thesis, Ohio State University, 1971).

4

A. Introduction

economic and political trends in both areas often led to dissimilar developments. In Poland, feudal political institutions remained until the end of the eighteenth century. Then, in a flurry of activity, marked especially by the Four-Year Diet of 1788–1792, an abortive attempt was made to prevent the complete disintegration of the state. Prior to that time, there had been no progress in the constitutional development of Poland since the sixteenth century. Since that time, the monarchy had no longer been hereditary; the succession was controlled by the nobility. This factor, combined with the principle of unanimity, the famous liberum veto that prevailed at the assemblies of the nobility, prevented change in the political and economic status quo. Poland remained primarily agrarian, and the virtual powerlessness of the burghers contributed to a marked decline in commerce and in urban life in general. In addition, a series of wars and rebellions in the seventeenth century, the worst being the Cossack insurrection that began in 1648, contributed to the general instability. Thus weakened, Poland was increasingly subject to interference in its affairs, on various pretexts, by Austria, Prussia, and Russia. Finally, Poland was divided among those countries by a series of partitions in 1772, 1793, and 1795.2 The Jews of Poland were particularly affected by the decline in urban life. More than two thirds of them lived in the towns, where they often numbered between a third and a half of the general population. The general economic decline was aggravated by a large and rapid increase in the Jewish population; while the Cossack uprisings had cut their number almost in half by 1658, they numbered approximately 900,000 by 1790. To the visiting traveler, they seemed to “swarm about the villages and towns.”3 As a visitor remarked, “In the kingdom of Poland they are to be seen swarming in every direction . . . you cannot enter a town or village, how small so ever its size, where you are not met by them.”4 2 The best treatments in English of this period in Polish history will be found in S. Kieniewicz et al., History of Poland (Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1968), and W. F. Reddaway et al., The Cambridge History of Poland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1941). 3 John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of Travel to Greece, Turkey, Russia, and Poland (New York: 1838), vol. 2, 189. 4 Ebenezer Henderson, Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia etc. (London: John Nisbet, 1826), 221.

A Spiritual Portrait of R. Abraham Alexander ha-Kohen of Kalisk

5

Indeed, If you ask for an interpreter they bring you a Jew; if you come to an inn, the landlord is a Jew; if you want post horses, a Jew procures them, and a Jew drives them; if you wish to purchase, a Jew is your agent; and this is perhaps the only country in Europe where Jews cultivate the ground. . . .5

Jews were to be found “. . . exercising almost all professions, and engaged in every branch of trade; millers, whitesmiths, saddlers, drivers, ostlers, innkeepers, and sometimes even as farmers.”6 Visitors to Poland were unanimous in the opinion that, “nearly the whole retail trade . . . is in the hands of the Jews.”7 “The whole business of the country is in the hands of the Jews.”8 “They have in a manner engrossed all the commerce of the country.”9 The Jews comprised a sizeable proportion of the urban population of Poland. As the Jewish population expanded, however, they moved in increasing numbers to small villages, particularly in the southeastern Ukrainian regions. They were businessmen, petty craftsmen, and artisans. In general, they seemed to dominate the commerce of the country. In the towns, the Jewish community was organized as a separate corporation. Taxes for the government and for communal use were collected by community, or qahal, officials appointed by the oligarchic communal leadership structure. Judges appointed or elected by communal leaders tried civil cases involving Jews. There were also numerous communal institutions, cemeteries, schools, bathhouses, almshouses, synagogues, and so on. Many religious fraternities existed to provide mutual insurance (sickness, burial expenses, dowry), philanthropic activity, or study, and there were Jewish artisan guilds as well. The devastation and destruction suffered by the Jewish community of Poland during the Cossack uprisings placed a very heavy financial burden on the qehillot (plural of qahal) of Poland at the time when they were the least able to cope with it. At the same time, the tax burden was 5 William Coxe, Travels into Poland, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark etc. (London: n.p., 1784), vol. 1, 163. 6 John Thomas James, Journal of a Tour in Germany. Switzerland, Russia, Poland etc. (London: John Murray, 1819), vol. 2, 367. 7 George Burnett, View of the Present State of Poland (London: n.p., 1807), 137. 8 Stephens, Incidents of Travel, vol. 2, 214. 9 Coxe, Travels into Poland, vol. 1, 193.

6

A. Introduction

increased by the government; as the communities borrowed, interest rates rose, and debts spiraled. Although the qahal had never been democratic and it exercised wide-ranging controls over the activities of the individual Jew, it retained his respect because of the important functions it performed. By representing the Jews to the government, the qahal sought to exert its influence in averting anti-Jewish legislation and in preventing the persecution of its members. In addition to providing numerous social and religious services, the communal leadership also appointed learned rabbis, thereby associating its authority with that of the tradition itself. During the eighteenth century, however, the communal leadership ceased to perform its functions. That is, in addition to increased taxation and the increase in population, which weakened the previously close ties between the individual members, power in the qehillot was seized by prominent wealthy men associated with the courts of the local nobles. The qahal leadership became a simple vehicle for the exploitation of the Jews by the nobility, and the qahal ceased to represent the interests of the Jews themselves. This was particularly true in the southern provinces of Podolia and Volhynia.10 In addition to the corruption of communal leadership, a widespread decline in learning accompanied this situation of social instability. “In Lithuania in 1720, 12 years of study after marriage was required for a man to serve as a rabbi; in 1761, all that was demanded was that the rabbi not be under twenty years of age.”11 The rabbis “follow the counsels of the mighty in their town. They are led by the qahal to defend the inciter and to encourage the oppressor. The elders use the rabbi merely as a peg on which to hang their dubious acts.”12 The corruption of both the lay and the religious leadership led to a defective social order; people could no longer admit to the justice of existing hierarchical distinctions. As the traditional order decayed, the need for new social forms intensified. The Jews sought membership in

10 B. Z. Dinaburg, “The Beginnings of Hasidism and Its Social and Messianic Elements” [Heb.], Zion 8, no. 3 (1943): 121–125. 11 Jacob Katz, Tradition and Crisis (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 228. 12 I. L. Margolis, Beit Middot (Frompol, 1780), 41, as quoted in Isaac Levitats, The Jewish Community in Russia 1772–1844 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 161.

A Spiritual Portrait of R. Abraham Alexander ha-Kohen of Kalisk

7

groups whose social function and authority were more legitimate and acceptable. The active opposition to the qahal consisted mainly of the Jewish artisan guilds.13 There was a struggle by these associations to retain a degree of independence from the qahal. Led by itinerant preachers and what Dinaburg (also known as Dinur) has termed the “intellectual proletariat” (ritual slaughterers, elementary teachers, and so forth), the guilds did not fully succeed in escaping the control of the qahal; they remained scattered and fragmented centers of opposition. In addition to the instability of the Jewish communal structure, the precarious nature of the economic situation, and the instability of Polish society in general, the Jews of eighteenth century Poland were still reeling from the shock of the failure of the messianic movement centered on Sabbetai Tzevi (d. 1676). Numerous secret followers remained, however, and Jacob Frank (1726–1791) revived the movement during the eighteenth century. These messianic movements, in their various anti-nomian and nihilistic guises, presented a fundamental challenge to traditional Jewish values. They claimed an end to the exile, that the messianic age had commenced, and that the ties of law and of the tradition itself could now be thrown off. It was a world turned on its head—what had been holy was now sinful, and what had been sin took on the aura of holiness.14 Although certain adherents of these movements followed their leaders into conversion—Sabbetians to Islam and Frankists to Christianity— some did remain Jewish, while at the same time maintaining secret allegiance to one or both of these messiahs. Most Jews turned in tragic disappointment from Shabbetai Tzevi when they learned of his conversion, and a strong campaign was waged by the rabbinic leadership to eradicate all memory of Sabbetianism. Frankism was never as widespread, though mention is made of Frankists throughout the eighteenth century. Both of these movements were particularly strong in Podolia and Volhynia, while in Lithuania and White Russia their impact was considerably weaker. 13 Cf. B. Z. Dinaburg, “The Beginnings of Hasidism and Its Social and Messianic Elements” [Heb.], Zion 8, no. 4 (1943) and 9, no. 1 (1944). 14 See Gershom Scholem, “The Holiness of Sin,” Commentary 41, no. 1 (January 1971): 41–70.

8

A. Introduction

During this period, small groups and isolated individuals who were ascetic, spiritually inclined, and learned lived in the Jewish communities of the towns and villages of Poland. They wore white robes on the Sabbath and the holidays, and they tended to keep to themselves. These men were called chasidim (“pious ones”) by the people. They studied the esoteric, mystical lore of the Kabbalah and, in some cases, formed centers for secret Sabbetian activity. Theirs was a spiritual life, full of fasting and study, repentance and prayer—the very antithesis of a popular movement. Yet, a popular revivalist movement did arise during the mid-eighteenth century, and it borrowed the name of these very groups—Hasidism. The founder of this new movement was Yisra’el ben Eli‘ezer of Miedzyborz in Podolia (c. 1700–1760). Popularly, he was referred to as the Ba‘al Shem Tov (“Master of the Good Name”) or by the acronym, BeSh”T. This charismatic preacher quickly gathered a large following in Podolia and Volhynia, after he revealed himself c. 1740. While the BeSh”T himself left no written works, his words are recorded in a number of works written by his followers.15 After the death of its founder, the movement spread north to White Russia and even as far as Lithuania, under the leadership of the students of the principal ideologue of the movement, Dov Ber of Mezrich, Volhynia (1710–1772), and others. By the middle of the nineteenth century, Hasidism had engulfed most of the Jews of Eastern Europe. What factors contributed to the rapid, success of this movement? At this time, the Jews of Eastern Europe were in the midst of a profound spiritual crisis. The decline in learning, the failure of the messianic movements, the increasingly grave economic situation, the prevalence of strict ascetic teachings as the model of religious life—all these factors were intertwined in varying degrees with the continuous persecution by different elements of the non-Jewish population. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that a popular revivalist movement arose. Hasidism provided a life-affirming doctrine, which sought religious meaning in everyday reality. If Kabbalah lifted the earth to the heavens, then Hasidism sought to bring the heavens down to earth.16 Scholem 15 See especially Ya‘aqov Yosef of Pollonye, Toldot Ya‘aqov Yosef (Jerusalem, 1972–1973 [5733], original edition, Koretz, 1780 [5540]) and Elimelekh of Lizensk, No’am Ellimelekh (Lviv, 1788). 16 See, for example, Simon Dubnow, Toldot ha-Chasidut (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1943), 4–8, 60–63.

A Spiritual Portrait of R. Abraham Alexander ha-Kohen of Kalisk

9

states that the central question in an examination of Hasidism is that of “the social function of mystical ideas.”17 Hasidism taught the centrality of personal religious experience and its common availability. It represented “a new form of religious consciousness in which rabbinical learning, whatever its intrinsic significance, played no essential part.”18 There is considerable scholarly debate surrounding the question of the role of messianism in the Hasidic movement. Dinaburg suggests that, to its founders, Hasidism “was a movement for preparation for redemption, and its teaching was entirely a Torah of redemption.”19 There is no obvious evidence in support of this statement, he claims, because of the time in which the movement arose. The elders of the community continued to be gravely suspicious of anything even vaguely reminiscent of Sabbetianism. Thus, the Hasidic leaders had to speak in veiled terms and only to hint at the real meaning and import of the words in their writings. It was the aim of the BeSh”T and his circle to raise the spiritual level of their generation to one worthy of redemption and to create a close interrelationship among the people. These were the two preconditions for the advent of the Messiah. Dinaburg concludes his study with a reconstruction of the nine steps, or levels, leading to the fulfillment of these two preconditions. The last of these steps is the ‘aliyah (“going up” to the Holy Land) of the tzaddiqim (“righteous men”—charismatic leaders of Hasidic groups), a subject which will be returned to in the body of this work. Scholem contends that: Hasidism represents an attempt to preserve those elements of Kabbalism which were capable of evoking a popular response, but stripped of their messianic flavor. . . . That seems to me the main point. Hasidism tried to eliminate the element of Messianism. . . . Perhaps one should rather speak of a “neutralization” of the Messianic element.20

17 Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1961), 327. 18 Ibid., 335. 19 B. Z. Dinaburg, “The Beginnings of Hasidism and Its Social and Messianic Elements” [Heb.], Zion 10, nos. 3–4 (1945): 149. 20 Scholem, Major Trends, 329.

10

A. Introduction

Clearly, then, there is a great deal of question about the significance of the messianic element in the rise of Hasidism. A number of scholars have attempted to show that Hasidism was also a movement of self-conscious social protest. Raphael Mahler, for example,21 describes the rebellion of the Jewish masses, especially that of the artisans, who demanded democratization of the qahal during the last decades before the partitions of Poland. He states that Hasidism combined with this ferment, though not organizationally and without embracing all of its ideas. At times, Hasidic leaders themselves protested against the communal order. Often, those involved in the rebellion were drawn to Hasidism by its democratic oppositionist teachings. Both Mahler and Dinaburg cite essentially the same evidence in support of this position. They state that the early Hasidic leaders came from precisely those social strata, the “intellectual proletariat,” which provided the leadership for the oppositionist movements in the qahal. They also cite certain activities attributed to the BeSh”T, such as helping rural Jews to celebrate Passover, worrying about the non-Jews who cheated them, and being concerned that they might require non-Jewish employees to work on the Sabbath. He would also send his followers to replace certain religious functionaries whose performances he found wanting in religious fervor. Mahler and Dinaburg both cite a story from Solomon Maimon’s writings, which describes a young Hasid’s arrival in a town. The first thing he did “was to ask about the community’s practices and whatever he found unrighteous he cancelled and enacted new regulations which all followed in detail.” And “the elders of the town . . . , who were much more learned than he, were frightened and trembled before him.”22 Another example can be found in the remarks of R. Aharon Karlin, which he appended to certain decrees on communal taxation enacted in the district of Niesviezh in 1769. These laws were enacted by the “decree assembly” (an official body selected by the electors for that purpose) in order to “save the poor from exploitation.” R. Aharon prefaces his own remarks by stating: “Since I have beheld the poverty of our people . . . I could not bear it. I have seen the evil with which the poor . . . are beset, 21 Raphael Mahler, History of the Jewish People in Modern Times, vol. 1, 1780–1815, book 3, Eastern Europe [Hebrew] (Merhavya, Israel: Sifriat Po‘alim, 1955), 181–307. 22 B. Z. Dinaburg, “The Beginnings of Hasidism and Its Social and Messianic Elements” [Heb.], Zion 10, no. 2 (1945): 149.

A Spiritual Portrait of R. Abraham Alexander ha-Kohen of Kalisk

11

and their outcry which comes from the depths of their pain.” From these remarks, Dinaburg concludes that the initiative for the new law came from R. Aharon, who wished to prevent “the robbing of the poor.” This conclusion is further warranted by R.  Aharon’s proclamation of a ban on anyone who would cancel the laws and “further weaken the poor.” The fact that R.  Aharon notes that his authority is from the Maggid, Dov Ber of Mezrich, demonstrates the social direction of the activities of the Hasidic leaders. Moreover, he proclaims a ban on all “who would demand korobka [communal tax from melamdim—‘teachers’] .  .  . and those who would hire the korobka . . . without the assent of those who sign, the decree assembly . . . or all the men of the city, all the poor and needy.” That is, Dinaburg adds, those who until now had not participated in the leadership of the qahal or the direction of its activities.23 In terms of the fundamental problem of the suffering of the poor, Hasidism did not stray from the religious tradition. Here, both Mahler and Dinaburg point out the importance of the doctrines surrounding tzedaqah (“righteousness,” that is, charity) in Hasidic literature. Everyone has an equal portion of wealth. God has placed the portion of the poor in the hands of the wealthy. Thus, the poor man is entitled to his portion. He has the right to claim it, for it is rightfully his. This holds true even though the wealthy man will derive the benefit from having performed a commandment when he gives from his wealth to the poor. The earliest published work of the movement contains a constant indictment of the scholars for pridefully neglecting the masses, leaving them in a state of moral and spiritual decline. The exhortations of the author of the work are directed toward the creation of unity and harmony between the scholars and the people. It is now possible, if not to evaluate, then at least to point to some of the problematic elements in the approaches of Dinaburg and Mahler to the social element of the Hasidic movement. There is, first of all, a problem of vocabulary in the writing of Jewish history. In general, one is virtually impelled to make arbitrary distinctions and artificial definitions. In this way, one discerns separate economic, social, national, and religious factors. How does one, in speaking of mid-eighteenth century Eastern European Jewry, justify the separation, 23 Ibid.

12

A. Introduction

even for the sake of clarity and simplicity, of social and religious factors? Most probably, that this separation goes too far in distorting the reality of the situation. It is an anachronistic attempt to apply modern terms to a premodern society. Moreover, there is a great deal of doubt as to whether there indeed was an element of “social” protest in the movement.24 Most of the evidence adduced as social protest may be characterized with equal ease as religious protest. Thus, examples such as the legendary appointments by the Ba‘al Shem Tov of better spiritually qualified religious functionaries, his concern for the Passover celebrations of the rural Jews, and his concern as to whether they caused non-Jews to work on the Sabbath all probably arose from religious motives. The young chasid described by Solomon Maimon reviews the sidrey ha-qahal (“orders” or “ways of the community”) and demands that some be changed. The term, as Yisra’el Halpern notes,25 is a very general one. In this case, it very probably indicates purely religious matters, since these were the major concern of the early Hasidic leaders. The incident involving R. Aharon of Karlin and the reform of communal taxation is the subject of an article by the same Prof. Halpern.26 Here, he notes that the meeting was held according to the regular communal procedures, and not at R.  Aharon’s request, or command. He also notes that the enactment was not at all unusual and did not constitute social reform. Furthermore, R.  Aharon, a well-known preacher, was invited to add his authority to the proceedings. His cjoice of words, expressing the assent of “all the men of the city, the poor and the needy,” followed a well-known formula, and was far from being an attempt at democratic enfranchisement. Other points could be made here as well, but it seems clear that there is a great deal of question surrounding the role of social protest in the rise: of Hasidism. The Hasidic movement did, however, represent a challenge to the established order of the Jewish community, as well as to its established values. The Hasidic group, constituted around its own leadership, the 24 See the rather extreme remarks of A. Eshkoli, “Hasidism in Poland,” in Beit Yisra’el be-Polin, ed. Yisra’el Halpern (Jerusalem: n.p., 1954), vol. 2, 86ff. 25 Yisra’el Halpern, “The Attitude of R.  Aharon of Karlin to the Authority of the Qehillot,” in his Jews and Judaism in Eastern Europe [Heb.] (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1968), 338n. 26 Ibid., 333–339.

A Spiritual Portrait of R. Abraham Alexander ha-Kohen of Kalisk

13

tzaddiqim, with its own places of prayer, and its own shochetim (ritual slaughterers), was outside of the qahal structure. During this period, the old corporate society of Western Europe was breaking down. The primary allegiance of the people was shifting away from the manor and the guild, nationalist theorists of the new state claimed that it granted equal citizenship, that is, membership to all. Religious and class differences were proclaimed irrelevant by this new ideology. Similarly, in Eastern Europe, the old corporations were disintegrating, although the new rationalist democratic ideologies had not yet fully taken hold.27 Thus, while the Jews of Western Europe, faced with the increasing instability of their own corporation and in fact given little choice by the new conditions, joined the state as citizens, no such opportunity presented itself to the Jews of Eastern Europe. There, the reordering was internal, and it took the form of Hasidism.28 Hasidism was a popular revivalist movement. It challenged the existing Jewish communal hierarchy, providing the Jews with an alternative community and a more satisfying scale of values.

27 This is not to say that they did not penetrate at all. Particularly after the first partition of 1772, there was a flurry of literary activity directed toward a reexamination of traditional modes of government. Cf. Reddaway, The Cambridge History of Poland, vol. 2, 192–194. 28 In the Jewish community of Eastern Europe there were, by the latter half of the eighteenth century, certain stirrings of Haskalah—the “enlightenment” movement. In Vilna, for example, Dr. Shmarya Polonus translated a number of contemporary French works dealing with the emancipation of the Jews into Polish, in an effort to influence Polish society. To these he added a commentary describing the abuses of the Polish Jewish community, especially the purchase of rabbinical offices, and a list of suggestions for improvement of the Jews. These suggestions, Projekt Reformy Zydów Polskich, included:

1)  that Jews be required to learn Polish in their schools; 2)  that they dress in the manner of other citizens; 3)  that they receive freedom of employment and trade; 4)  freedom to own and work land; 5)  freedom to study in the universities and scientific institutes; 6) the rights of citizenship to enlightened Jews immediately, and to the rest within twelve years.



Cf. Israel Klausner, The Jewish Community of Vilna In the Days of the Ga’on [Heb.] (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1942), 49.

1. The TLa”Q Chasidim Abraham the son of Alexander ha-Kohen was a student of Dov Ber of Mezrich. It is likely that he came to join the Maggid1 some time after the death of Yisra’el Ba‘al Shem Tov in 1760. There is a legend, repeated in many places,2 that, prior to this, R.  Abraham had studied with the Ga’on R. Eliyahu of Vilna. In fact, little is known about the personal background or the youth of R. Abraham. There is no information about his family or about the place or date of his birth. Dov Ber, Kalisker’s teacher, was largely responsible for the spread of the Hasidic movement. He transferred the center of the movement from the out-of-the-way Miedzyborz in Podolia, where Ba‘al Shem Tov had lived, to Volhynia. And, more importantly, Dov Ber decentralized the movement. He sent his students and followers to communities in Poland, White Russia, and Lithuania, where they became the leaders of autonomous groups of chasidim.3 1 Maggid—a preacher to the public. This was a permanent post in the communities, and was considered a part of the religious hierarchy. See S. Ettinger, “The Hasidic Movement—Reality and Ideals,” Journal of World History 11, nos. 1–2 (1968): 252. 2 See for example, “Kalisker, R.  Abraham b. Alexander Ha-Kohen,” in the Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: n.p., 1925), vol. 7, 422; S. A. Horodetzky, “Le-Qorot ha-Chasidim,” Ha-Shiloach 9 (1905): 420. Horodetzky cites this as an instance of someone leaving the cause of the persecutors for that of the persecuted. Even if Kalisker did study with R. Elijah, it must have been before the latter became an outspoken opponent of Hasidism, which was not until after 1770. See Mordekhai Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim [Heb.] (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1970), vol. 1, 29 et passim. 3 This is not to say that the transference of authority was entirely smooth. Many of the followers of the BeSh”T did not accept Dov Ber’s leadership. In addition, the Ba‘al Shem’s grandson, Barukh, claimed the right of leadership on the basis of heredity.

1. The TLa” Q Chasidim

15

One of the most important followers of Dov Ber was R. Menachem Mendel of Minsk (later of Horodek and Vitebsk). He had become the leader of a group of chasidim in Minsk during the lifetime of his teacher and was active in recruiting chasidim all over White Russia, a district which included the provinces of Mohilev and Vitebsk and part of the province of Minsk. As a Hasidic leader, Menachem Mendel was of a moderate orientation,4 and, when the opposition to Hasidism arose, he was among those who sought to calm the storm.5 R. Abraham also went to White Russia, to the small town of Kalisk (Kolszki)6 in the province of Vitebsk, near Liady, in 1768. There he gathered around him a group of young men to whom he taught chasidut. The discipline he taught them involved “great fervour in prayer and self-effacement” [bitul mahut ‘atzmam].7 For about two years Menachem Mendel taught his students. One of the main principles he taught was self-degradation, to demean oneself, and to be humble, to wear the clothes of simple people. He also taught them to dance and shout at the time of prayer. Finally, in 1770, they became a group of thirty-five brilliant men, strong of heart and highly talented. Their way of worship was ecstatic, and they would stir hearts to the fear of Heaven. But they were boisterous, and they demeaned the honor of learned mitnaggedim (“opponents” of Hasidism) in an effort to expose their haughtiness.8 It was precisely during this time that opposition to Hasidism began to crystallize. The chasidim deemphasized erudition and placed the personal religious experience at the center of their system of values. They claimed that the proper intention of the religious act was more important Finally, there was no uniformity in the ideas of the various Hasidic leaders. These ideological differences, however, had not yet crystallized. See Ettinger, “The Hasidic Movement,” 262ff., and below, Ch. 3. 4 See Dubnow, Toldot ha-Chasidut, 132ff. 5 He attempted to see the Ga’on of Vilna twice, in order to allay his suspicions of the movement. See Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 89ff. 6 I have retained the popular spellings “Kalisk” and “Kalisker,” since this is the usage in the Hasidic texts. 7 Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson, “Abot ha-Chasidut,” Ha-Tamim, no. 2 (Kislev 1926): 62. Virtually all of the information about Kalisker, his followers and his teachings during this period, comes from this source, which is based on the oral traditions of chasidim connected with ChaBa”D, that is, the followers of Shne’ur Zalman of Liady. Because there was a dispute between Shne’ur Zalman and Abraham Kalisker (see chapter chapter 3 in this volume), it is possible to question its objectivity. 8 Ibid.

16

A. Introduction

than punctual observance. They also instituted a slightly different method of ritual slaughter and prayed at times other than those prescribed by the law. All of these matters aroused opposition.9 The chasidim themselves did not regard their changes as deviations from the established tradition, and they did not claim to be the bearers of the only truth. They had no intention of breaking with the rest of the Jewish people. Within the communities of Eastern Europe there were often instances of cooperation between Hasidic tzaddiqim and established communal leaders.10 “The main principle at issue in the clash between chasidim and mitnaggedim was the problem of authority.”11 It was a conflict primarily between the supernaturally based authority of the tzaddiq, who claimed direct access to the Divine, and another kind of charismatic leadership, represented by the Ga’on of Vilna. This theory, that the conflict represented a clash between two distinct forms of charismatic authority, ought to be extended further to include the social consequences of the new leadership form. A new type of leadership must be accompanied by a new social form. The chasidim had their own places for prayer and study, their own community. At times the members of the Hasidic group or ‘edah viewed themselves as superior to their opponents and saw their own values as superior to those of their adversaries. This was, apparently, true in the case of the followers of R. Abraham, as has been noted above. Hasidism was not only a communitarian, but a religious revivalist movement as well. Its prayer services were often raucous; men shouted and danced about. Often, liquid intoxicants were used to induce spiritual intoxication. Their strange behavior during prayer evoked a strong response from those who favored a more austere and solemn service. One practice repeatedly attacked in various anti-Hasidic documents is that “they turn over before the Ark . . . heads down and legs up.”12 9 See the pamphlet Zamir Arizim ve-Charbot Zurim, which contains the bans and testimonies against the chasidim originally promulgated in 1772. The tract was republished with an introduction and extensive notes by Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 27–69. 10 See Ettinger, “The Hasidic Movement,” 260f. 11 Ibid. 12 The “Epistle of Zeal” from Vilna, 1772 (a section of Zamir Arizim), see Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 39ff. He notes there that this charge is repeated

1. The TLa” Q Chasidim

17

A number of scholars have traced this practice to Abraham Kalisker. The basis for their assumption that it originated with R. Abraham is a letter written by R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady to Kalisker in the midst of a dispute, in 1806.13 Shne’ur Zalman writes that Kalisker’s chasidim were in the habit of “turning somersaults in the streets and marketplaces.”14 He continues, “during the dispute in Shklov in the winter of 5532 [1772, when he and Kalisker debated with the leaders of the mitnaggedim of that community] you found no defense for this and the like. Then the rabbis of Shklov wrote to inform us. . . .”15 The practice of turning head over heels at times of great spiritual enthusiasm was not, however, confined to the followers of Abraham Kalisker. It is told that, from time to time during the prayer service, Shne’ur Zalman would himself fall to the ground and roll over and over for a half-hour without stopping.16 It is known also that this practice was common in the court of R. Chayyim Chaykel of Amdor.17 In addition, these charges are repeated in oppositionist documents of 1781 and 1786, long after Kalisker had left for Palestine. A letter written forty-four years after the fact, and in the midst of a debate, is not strong enough evidence to support the idea that the practice originated with Abraham Kalisker. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady also suggests that the behavior of Kalisker’s chasidim was the cause of the first bans of excommunication against the chasidim in 1772.18 There is one other source which describes these several times in the tract, as well as in the Vilna ban of 1781, and the Cracow ban of 1786. 13 See below, Ch. 3. 14 This is quoted in Scholem, Major Trends, 335; Jacob Agus, The Evolution of Jewish Thought (New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1959), 434n.55, and in numerous other places. 15 According to a tradition of the family of Shne’ur Zalman, after the dispute, he and Kalisker were locked in a cellar but managed to escape and flee to Minsk to their teacher Menachem Mendel. Ch. M. Heilman, Beit Rabi (Berdichev, 1903), 13. 16 Ibid., 90. See also A. Wertheim, Hilkhot ve-Halikhot ba-Chasidut (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rab Kook, 1960), 17. 17 Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 76. 18 In 1772, the anti-Hasidic pamphlet Zamir Arizim was published by order of the elders of the community of Vilna, and the Ga’on, R. Elijah. The pamphlet included six parts: 1) an “Epistle of Zeal” from the elders of Vilna to the elders of Brody; 2) the great herem, or ban of excommunication, issued by the Brody Jewish community in the same year of 1772; 3) a long interpolation by the editor of the pamphlet, summarizing the complaints against the chasidim; 4) a letter from the elders of Vilna

18

A. Introduction

events, but it, too, is untrustworthy in this matter because it originates with the followers and descendants of Shne’ur Zalman.19 According to R. Yosef Yitzchaq Shneerson, Kalisker’s chasidim were called TLa”Q chasidim, because the group was founded in the year Tav Qof Lamed (1770 [5530]). One of these chasidim went to Shklov in 1770. There, he asked permission to address the congregation on a Sabbath morning. His learning was found suitable on examination by the rabbis of the community, and he was allowed to speak. He gave a long, wonderful address, . . . which all enjoyed. But just before the end of his sermon he turned to the congregation and said, “I want to inform you that I have not come here as a Maggid . . . for payment, but to open your eyes that you may see the truth.” And he proceeded to demean the most famous and most learned figures of the time.20 In the confusion which followed, he managed to escape. The whole town was in turmoil: On the one hand, they were astounded by the brilliance of his learning . . . but, on the other, they were indignant beause of his audacity in disparaging known scholars. At that time the first committee was formed in Shklov to centralize propaganda against the teachings of the BeSh”T and his student, the Maggid of Miedzyrzecze. And they [the rabbis of Shklov] went to Minsk and to Vilna to confer on the arrangement of the matter.21

This, states R. Shneerson, was the cause of the dispute which came into the open with the bans of 1772. According to Mordekhai Vilensky, who has devoted a two-volume work to the controversy between the chasidim and the mitnaggedim, this young man who addressed the Jews of Shklov was “undoubtedly from the court of the Maggid.”22 Unfortunately, he does not mention his source of information. Both Shne’ur Zalman and R. Shneerson include an account of how the Maggid was displeased. In Shne’ur Zalman’s account, the Maggid was

to the elders of Brisk; 5) a circulating letter to all the communities of the region, from the elders of Vilna; 6) the rules adopted by the community of Leshnow in the face of the Hasidic challenge. See also above, note 42. 19 See above, note 37. 20 No doubt including the Ga’on of Vilna. 21 Shneerson, “Abot ha-Chasidut.” 22 Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 30.

1. The TLa” Q Chasidim

19

angry with the conduct of Kalisker’s chasidim, which he viewed as the cause of the bans of 1772. In R. Shneerson’s version, When the Maggid, our teacher, . . . heard of the matter [a young chasid offended the rabbis of Shklov] he called a meeting of most of his students, the tzaddiqim.  .  .  . And all of them decided to meet [first] with .  .  . R. Abraham . . . who had also been called to the meeting, to rebuke him for this misconduct. His good friends . . . Levi Yitzhak23 and . . . Meshulam Zusye24 . . . tried to ease the judgement of the rest of the comrades. They pleaded especially with R. Menachem Mendel of Horodek to speak out in favor of R. Abraham Kalisker. They were successful . . . and the matter was discussed only in the meeting of the comrades—at great length and in all its details. . . . R. Abraham took it upon himself to correct his leadership in the future. And all the comrades turned their eyes toward .  .  . our R. Shne’ur Zalman that he might speak well of R. Abraham Kalisker. . . . At that meeting it was decided to uproot and eliminate wildness and rowdiness in ‘avodah [service] of God.25

It should be noted here that Shneerson does not imply that the Maggid blamed Kalisker for what happened, nor does he describe the meeting with Dov Ber. Some doubt is cast on his account by his suggestion that “all the comrades turned” to Shne’ur Zalman. At this time, the future ChaBa”D leader was still a young man and certainly did not have the stature of some of the older tzaddiqim. This meeting was the source of the well-known Hasidic saying, der TLaQ is kein tolq nit, that is, the behavior during the year Tav Qof Lamed is disorderly.26 In Shne’ur Zalman’s version, the meeting of the tzaddiqim took place after the proclamation of the bans in 1772. He and Abraham Kalisker 23 24 25 26

Of Berdichev, d. 1809. See below, Ch. 3, on his role in the dispute. Of Annopol, d. 1800. Shneerson, “Abot ha-Chasidut.” Mordekhai Vilensky, “Note,” Kiryat Sefer 1, no. 2 (July 1924): 240, has suggested that the name of Kalisker’s ‘edah—TLa’’Q—was actually a pun on the Yiddish word talk, which means “order,” to suggest that they were in fact the opposite. In letter 49 (see Appendix I), Kalisker himself mentions the word in enumerating the actions against him of Eli’ezer of Disne, a follower of Shne’ur Zalman who aggravated the dispute between the two Hasidic leaders. R. Abraham states that Eliezer told the leader of the Sephardim about “the whole matter of the talq, that men were led to sin because of me, God forbid.” This whole matter remains confused and unclear.

20

A. Introduction

journeyed to Rovno together, but Kalisker was afraid to enter the town because he knew that the Maggid was angry with him. He asked Shne’ur Zalman to request that Menachem Mendel intervene in his favor with Dov Ber, which he did, as did Yehiel-Mikhal of Zlochov. “Thereupon I immediately went to the end of the town to call you, and we entered the room of our teacher Dov Ber together. My eyes saw and my ears heard how he rebuked you sternly for your bad influence upon the chasidim. . . .”27 It is virtually impossible to say what actually happened during the years 1770–1772 on the basis of these two accounts, both of which are probably somewhat less than objective. There are recognizable elements of exaggeration in both accounts. While Kalisker was certainly not among the moderates in the Hasidic camp in terms of his attitude toward the mitnaggedim, it seems unlikely that all the Hasidic leaders of the time would hold R. Abraham responsible for the bans of 1772. If they had, there would certainly be some indication of it in the writings of tzaddiqim other than Shne’ur Zalman and chasidim other than his followers. It is also true that he was almost certainly a charismatic figure, given to expressing himself in extremes and tending to act out his emotions in an exaggerated way. It is entirely possible, then, that R. Abraham did encourage his chasidim to make fun of the learned and to turn somersaults in the streets. And it is not unlikely that the chasid who appeared in Shklov was a member of the TLa”Q ‘edah. But the issuance of a ban against the chasidim in 1772 by the communities of Vilna, Brody, and Leshnov, and probably several others, was not the result of the actions of Kalisker or his followers. Nevertheless, some elements of these accounts are corroborated in other, less questionable sources. The first anti-Hasidic pamphlet contains the information that the investigation of the chasidim ordered by the leaders of the community of Vilna was a direct result of a communication received from the communal leaders of Shklov.28 Thus, something must have happened in Shklov to provoke the elders of that city. There can also be little doubt that R.  Abraham’s attitude toward the mitnaggedim was most unsympathetic. He was unlike most of the early tzaddiqim who wished at all costs to avoid an open dispute with those who opposed them. These moderates are exemplified by Kalisker’s 27 Letter by Shne’ur Zalman in 1506, see below, Ch. 3, note 38. 28 Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 23, 30ff., 64.

1. The TLa” Q Chasidim

21

master Menachem Mendel, who journeyed twice to Vilna in an unsuccessful effort to see the Ga’on, R. Eliyahu29 One famous tzaddiq used to say that “A little tzaddiq likes little sinners and a great tzaddiq likes and stands up for even hardened sinners.” Such teachings prevented separatism.”30 R. Abraham, on the other hand, taught that: Gevurah [power, judgement] is born of chesed [love, favor].  .  .  . For example, if I truly love someone—and I see that someone has come to do him evil, then the quality of gevurah is born in me. . . . And thus whoever truly loves God . . . will overcome [hitgaber] those who transgress His will and eradicate them from the world.31

When the pamphlet containing the bans and other materials was published in 1772, there were several different responses by the chasidim. They destroyed almost all of the copies by buying and burning them.32 A prominent Hasidic leader, R. Shmu’el Shmelke Horovitz (1726–1778), addressed a letter to the elders of Brody late in 1772. He appealed to them to write to Vilna to explain the errors in the conclusions reached about the chasidim.33 Shne’ur Zalman of Liady journeyed along with Menachem Mendel to Vilna, in an attempt to see R. Eliyahu. But they found the door closed to them. In Shklov, too, they did not meet with success.34 “Then a new idea formed in the mind of R.  Mendel: to go to the Land of Israel . . . and to found there a new center of chasidut, in such a way that the new Torah [of Hasidism] would be sanctified in the sanctity of the land.”35 During the month of Adar, 1777, some of the most important Hasidic leaders of White Russia set out for the Holy Land, accompanied by some of their followers. These leaders were Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, Abraham ha-Kohen of Kalisk, Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, and Yisra’el Politzker.

29 See above, note 35. 30 Ettinger, “The Hasidic Movement,” 260. 31 Abraham Kalisker in Chesed le-Abraham (Lviv, 1851), 44a. 32 Dubnow, Toldot ha-Chasidut, 129. 33 Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 84ff. 34 See the letter of Shne’ur Zalman to the “men of the minyan of Vilna,” 1777, in D. Hillman, Igrot Ba‘al ha-Tanya u-Bnei Doro (Jerusalem: Hamasorah, 1953), 95–98. 35 Dubnow, Toldot ha-Chasidut, 134.

2. The Early Years in Palestine: 1777–1788 The Hasidic leaders and their followers set out from White Russia in Adar (March) 1777.1 They journeyed south through Volhynia and Podolia.2 Many chasidim accompanied them, including some who were not planning to go to Palestine.3 Before they crossed the Dniester into Wallachia, Shne’ur Zalman parted from his friends.4 It is not clear whether Menachem Mendel persuaded him to remain, or whether Shne’ur Zalman himself had planned to remain and lead the chasidim of White Russia.5 Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, Abraham Kalisker, Yisra’el Politzker, and their companions proceeded across Wallachia to Galace, a port on the Black Sea. Many Jews, most of them non-chasidim, had attached themselves to the Hasidic ‘olim,6 whom they outnumbered. Most of them were poor and depended upon the resources of the chasidim.7 In the 1 Liqqutei Amarim (Lemberg, 1911), part 2, letter 29; Chibbat ha-Aretz, ed. Barukh David Hakohen (Kahana) (Jerusalem, 1968 [5768], original edition, Jerusalem: Yitzchaq Nahum Levy, 1896–1897 [5657]), 49. 2 Letter by Yisra’el Politzker to the leaders of Vitebsk, written in the Spring (Iyar) of 1778, at Jassy. Found in Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 27; the date and places are supplied by Ch. Heilman, Beit Rabi, reprinted ed. (Tel Aviv: n.p., 1964), 129. 3 Yisrael Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration to Palestine During the Eighteenth Century [Heb.] (Jerusalem: Schocken, 1946), 21. 4 Mordekhai Teitelbaum, Ha-Rav mi-Liady u-Mifleget ChaBa”D, vol. 1 (Warsaw: Toshiyah, 1909–1910), 4–5. 5 Teitelbaum notes, ibid., that he did not immediately return to White Russia. 6 This word (singular, ‘oleh) denotes “those who go up,” that is, immigrants to the land of Israel. 7 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letters 27, 28, 29.

2. The Early Years in Palestine: 1777–1788

23

journey across the Black Sea, one ship was lost; thirty of the eighty Jews on board were saved. Of this number, most returned to their homes.8 The rest of the ‘olim proceeded to Constantinople. They travelled by ship to Acre, where they arrived on 5 Elul (August–September) 1777, five months after setting out. This group of three hundred Jews9 now faced numerous problems, the first of which was where to settle. There was virtually no Ashkenazic community in Jerusalem, taxes were high, and there was no room there for such a large group of settlers.10 The small Jewish quarter of Hebron also could not house this group. In the Galilee, however, the rebel Bedouin Sheikh, Zahir al-Omar, had been replaced by the appointee of the Porte, Ahmad al-Jazzar, as Pasha of Tyre.11 Al-Jazzar was a Bosnian who had served in Constantinople and in Egypt, where he had received his name, which means “the butcher.” Nevertheless, this change in rulers proved beneficial to the ‘olim. Since al-Jazzar was interested in resettling Safed, which had been partly destroyed by an earthquake some twenty years earlier, he granted concessions to Jews who wished to settle there. These concessions are described by a Sephardi Jew, Ya‘aqov Elishar, in a letter to Chayyim Yosef David Azulai, written in 1782:12 And this [new] Pasha has been kind to them and has given them concessions on all the general taxes and crop taxes, the poll tax, . . . and other expenses—they will pay only 2000 ara’yot [literally, “lions”]13 a year 8 Ibid., letter 27. 9 Ibid. 10 Y. Ben-Zvi, The Land of Israel Under Ottoman Rule [Heb.] (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1955), 273–279. 11 Uriel Heyd, The Land of Israel Under Ottoman Rule [Heb.], ed. Moshe Maoz (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1969), 41. 12 Azulai was a well-known Jewish traveler, author of the Ma‘agal Tob and sometime resident of Jerusalem. I quote here from the letter as presented by U. Tal (ed.), Chevrah u-Mishtar be-Yishuv ha-Yehudi be-Eretz Yisra’el 1777–1840 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1958), 9ff. 13 F. Volney, Travels Through Syria and Egypt (London, n.p., 1787), vol. 2, 406–431, as quoted in C. Issawi (ed.), The Economic History of the Middle East 1800–1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 217 ff. Volney describes the coinage system as follows: “the most simple of these coins is the Para, called also a Medin, a Fadda, a Kata, or a Mesira, . . . then the Zolata or Islote, which is worth thirty; the Piastre, called Kersh-Asadi, or Piastre of the Lion, worth forty Paras, or fifty French sols (two shillings and a penny); and is most generally used in commerce. . . . The gold coins are the . . . Dahab . . . worth 3 Piastres. . . .”

24

A. Introduction

and no more. And for this, a fund has been established in Constantinople that this amount should come from them. . . . The community of chasidim in this place [has rebuilt] the synagogue of Beit Yosef [Karo]. . . . This city has been freed from all the debts it owed to earlier rulers. . . . Permission has been granted to rebuild the synagogues . . . and now . . . three have been rebuilt for the Sephardim and the one for the Ashkenazim. And permission has been granted to rebuild the houses and the courtyards. . . . Also, all the Jews are freed from forced labor, and even their donkeys—no ruler has permission to take them for labor. And anyone who has a claim against the Jews, even the most insignificant among them, no ruler has permission to judge the case—except according to the judge. . . . And the ruler does not have permission to house his soldiers in Jewish homes. . . .

It is not known whether all of these privileges were granted before the arrival of the chasidim, or if some were granted afterward, as an inducement to their settling in Safed.14 Much of this information is corroborated in a letter sent by Yisra’el Politzker to the chasidim of Vitebsk.15 He writes of sending a tax of 2000 ara’yot, of praying in the synagogue of Beit Yosef, and of the favor God has shown them by causing the ruler to make concessions and “to rebuild Safed.” There was yet another attractive feature in the political situation of Safed. The chief assistant to al-Jazzar, the man in charge of his treasury, was the Jewish banker of Damascus, Chayyim ben Shaul Parhi.16 He tried to help his co-religionists and often used his position to ease their situation. He also lent money to the Jewish community. The idea of a Hasidic ‘aliyah was not a new one; small groups had preceded the one led by Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Abraham Kalisker.17 These groups may have generated some of the enthusiasm which 14 Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration, 29. 15 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 29. 16 Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration, 29. Parhi also served under al-Jazzar’s successor, Suleiman Pasha (1804–1818), and aided in the accession of his successor, Abdullah Pasha. The latter became angry with him and had him killed in 1820. Al-Jazsar maintained his reputation as a butcher when, in a fit of wrath, he had one of Parhi’s eyes taken out and the tip of his nose cut off; cf. Tal, Chevrah u-Mishtar, 11. According to one report, he killed all of his seven wives with his own hands. A. S. Rabinowitz, Toldot ha-Yehudim be-Eretz Yisra’el (Jaffo: n.p., 1911), 120. 17 Abraham Gershon Kutover, the father-in-law of the BeSh”T, had come to Hebron in 1747. He and his two sons moved later to Jerusalem, where he died between 1758

2. The Early Years in Palestine: 1777–1788

25

led to the ‘aliyah of 1777. There is no doubt that the first bans of excommunication against the chasidim, issued in 1772, were also an important factor that encouraged resettlement. The Jews who accompanied the chasidim to Palestine came primarily from Podolia, Volhynia, and Wallachia. Many of them had despaired of life in their homeland. This was a time of political confusion, and Jews were being expelled from the Austrian and Prussian portions of Poland. There were numerous pogroms, the worst one at Uman in 1768. The slow progression of the Hasidic ‘olim soon drew many of these now rootless, indigent Jews to their entourage. It is also possible that the Ottoman government was secretly encouraging this immigration.18 Apparently, Menachem Mendel hoped that the holiness of the land would cause mitnaggedim to stop persecuting the chasidim, and to receive favorably the requests from the ‘olim. Thus, the earliest extant letter written by him from Palestine is addressed not to the chasidim, but and 1763. Nahhman of Horodenka and Menachem Mendel of Premishlan led a small group of about thirty followers of the BeSh”T to Palestine in 1864. Of these, some settled in Tiberias, but by the time of the arrival of the later Hasidic ‘olim, both of these leaders had died. Cf. Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration, 11–19. 18 The following document was found in the Royal archives at Warsaw (as quoted in ibid., 24f.): The Division of the Permanent Council of the Treasury of the two nations [Poland and Lithuania] demands, on the order of the council, which was informed of the matter of the departure of the Jews to Jerusalem, because the Ottoman Porte has granted them privileges, that the Treasury Committee send an order to all the communities and announce, that no Jew may dare to cross the border without a passport from the qahal. At the time of composition of this order may it please the Committee to take into consideration that this order ought not to infringe upon the domain, of property owners who have rights in these communities. And, it should be added that even though the border guards will receive orders—after discussion between the Treasury Committee and the Department of the Army—to forbid the departure of Jews crossing the border or the way to Jerusalem, nevertheless we warn the communities that it is in their interest to halt the departures to Jerusalem, since the communities will be required, to pay taxes to the government on the basis of tarriffs previously determined, and the peculiar debts listed for the communities—they will be required to pay them without consideration that the number of Jews has decreased. And since the Permanent Council wishes that the program for this order be brought before it before it is published, therefore may it please the Treasury Committee to announce this program to His Majesty at his next Permanent Council meeting. Given at Warsaw on the twenty-seventh day of the month of September, 1777.

26

A. Introduction

to their opponents, “their honors, the rulers and wise men of Volhynia, Lithuania, and White Russia, may God preserve them.”19 It offers the friendship and forgiveness of the chasidim for the previous wrongdoings of the official Jewish community against them. The tone of the letter is gentle and forgiving; it is an entreaty for peace. Abraham Kalisker, in his letter addressed to the chasidim of Smela, displays a different attitude towards the mitnaggedim. He writes about a letter they sent to the Sephardic elders of Tiberias, incriminating the chasidim: . . . the elders of Tiberias gave me the incriminating testimony which was sent to them, written in Adar 1777, when we set out from the diaspora. I will not mention the names [of those who wrote it] on my lips. I decided to burn it. I kept it with me several days, then burned it before all the prominent men.20

Kalisker goes on to say that such “impurities” can cause evil in the diaspora, but in the land of Israel they can have no effect. Nonetheless, virtually every letter sent by the Hasidic leaders mentions that they remember their followers in the diaspora in their prayers. Clearly, they were acting as “emissaries to the king” on behalf of the people. “We have done what is required of us—appealing for mercy.”21 The hope was that the prayers of the people would be answered in the land of Israel, specifically because of the holiness of the land. In the writings of the two Hasidic leaders, however, there is no indication that they conceived their ‘aliyah as a prerequisite to the dawn of a messianic age.22 When the ‘olim settled in Safed, they found that, because of the famine of that year and the many recent wars, prices had risen tenfold. “Not one of the ‘olim is earning a single penny, for we are still strangers. We do not know the language or the customs of the land.”23 The indigent Jews who had attached themselves to the group were the source of large expenditures by the chasidim.24 Yet, they were not abandoned: “And the Lord has Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 28. Ibid., letter 29. Ibid., letter 12. On Menachem Mendel, see Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration, 38ff. I found a similar lack of attention to the messianic issue in the writings of Abraham Kalisker. 23 Heilman, Beit Rabi [1903], 28. 24 Ibid., x. 19 20 21 22

2. The Early Years in Palestine: 1777–1788

27

helped us feed several hundred souls, when we ran out of funds, we were able to borrow some thousands at interest.”25 The financial situation of the chasidim soon became grave, and it was decided to send emissaries to their homeland to raise funds. Yisra’el Politzker and one other chasid26 were chosen for this mission. First, they went to Constantinople, where, with the aid of the Jewish “prince,” Barukh Zunana, they received 3000 ara’yot. Of this sum, 2000 was for the annual tax, 250 was kept for expenses, and only 750 was actually sent to the community of Safed to keep them until more could be raised in Poland. Sending emissaries each year to raise funds became a regular practice of the chasidim. Politzker did not return to Palestine, but stayed in White Russia, where he helped to organize local fundraising. Thus, the Ashkenazic Jews who settled in Safed were greatly dependent upon the financial support of their brethren in Eastern Europe. This support came from two major sources. The first soure, the traditional support for the poor in the land of Israel, came through Brody, where officials gathered funds collected in France, Holland, Germany, and Italy, as well as further east.27 The funds for the Ashkenazim in the Galilee were, apparently, disbursed by the chasidim.28 The chasidim also organized a system of support in their native regions. Each Hasidic household had a box in which small coins were collected both weekly and before the holidays. These funds, also called tzedaqah, were collected by messengers sent out by the local tzaddiqim. The tzaddiqim then forwarded the funds to the person in charge of their region—Yisakhar Bar of Lubavich29 in the north and Ya‘aqov of Smela30 25 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 29. 26 Politzker, in his letter, mentions that he is with another, without naming him. This is Shelomoh Segal, whom Kalisker mentions in Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 29, Abraham Yaari, Shluchei Eretz Yisra’el (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rab Kook, 1951), 610ff. 27 Ibid., 36. 28 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letters 17, 21. 29 Yisakhar Bar of Lubavich, also called Kablinker, was the teacher of Shne’ur Zalman of Liady while the latter was a boy. The two of them were later students of Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk. Bar died c. 1787. Cf. Hillman, Igrot, 31. In Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 17, Yisakhar Bar and Ya‘aqov of Smela are addressed as the treasurers of the land. 30 He was a prominent Hasidic leader, who continued to direct the raising of funds for the ‘olim or many years. See, for example, Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 5, 12, 6, 9, 22. Ya‘aqov Smelaner was apparently not a tzaddiq, and it seems that his office was one which specifically concerned itself with the funds for the chasidim in Palestine.

28

A. Introduction

(Smelaner) in the south. Then, the funds were collected by the emissaries sent annually by the chasidim for that purpose. Some other tzaddiqim also began to take an interest in the funds for the land of Israel. The three leaders of the chasidim of White Russia, Yisra’el Politzker, Yisakhar Bar of Lubavich, and Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, issued a proclamation aimed at stopping this practice. They also reminded that the chasidim should make contributions at the end of each week, as well as before each holiday.31 A similar proclamation was issued in the Ukraine by Levi Yitzchaq of Berdichev.32 Shne’ur Zalman, who, apparently, succeeded Yisakhar Bar of Lubavich as the general manager of funds in White Russia, was particularly active in encouraging these contributions.33 He often granted letters of endorsement to chasidim from the Galilee—“messengers for themselves.”34 He also wrote letters to other tzaddiqim, encouraging them to raise funds for the Holy Land.35 To encourage contributions, the Hasidic leaders in Palestine composed a special blessing to be read in the synagogue for those who had contributed:

Thus, in Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 5, Menachem Mendel and Abraham Kalisker say the following: . . . we have heard of the . . . [difficulties] of our beloved . . . Ya‘aqov of Smela in the matter of the collection of the money . . . we have issued an edict to be strictly enforced [that is] . . . the edict issued by the scholars [Yisra’el Politzker, Yisakhar Bar of Lubavich, and Shne’ur Zalman] . . . that all the collected funds be in cash and not be lent. . . .

This is clearly an allusion to the proclamation issued some months earlier by those rabbis—see below. Thus it would seem that Shne’ur Zalman, like other tzaddiqim, raised money in his area, but he was particularly active in this matter, and he came to have a special responsibility for funds collected in White Russia. At no point in the letters is he referred to as treasurer or, in connection with the funds, in the manner in which Ya‘aqov of Smela is addressed. 31 Hillman, Igrot, 8ff. 32 S. A. Horodetzky, ‘Oleh Zion (Tel Aviv: Gazit, 1947), 179. 33 See Hillman, Igrot, 13ff., 38ff., 83ff. 34 See ibid., 42, 43, 50, 60. 35 In a letter written to Menachem Nahum of Chernobyl between 1789 and 1797, he asks him to encourage his followers to donate regularly “to support our brothers . . . and their king at the head . . . our teacher Abraham.” Ibid., 47.

2. The Early Years in Palestine: 1777–1788

29

May He, who blessed our fathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aharon, David, and Solomon, bless, guard and help each and every one of Israel who contributes to the benefit of the fund of the land of Israel, whether physically or financially, by word or by deed. And every man or woman who makes a new contribution will receive a full and abundant blessing from the Lord God in Zion. For there he commanded blessing and life because of the merit of His holy Torah, the Land and its inhabitants, the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, the prophets, the Tanna’im, R. Akiva, R. Me’ir Ba‘al ha-Nes, and R.  Shim‘on bar Yochai, who protect us always—may their merit defend them and their descendants and all that is theirs the community of Israel, and let us say, Amen.36

In addition to contributions directed generally to the poor of the land of Israel or to the chasidim there, certain contributions were made for the benefit of specific individuals.37 These included the leaders of the community, relatives, friends, and some of those who went out as “messengers for themselves” and succeeded in making an impression on the communities where they appeared.38 The emissaries who were sent out annually to collect the monies also carried letters to the Hasidic community. These letters contained, in addition to appeals for funds, extensive teachings, as well as descriptions of the events in the Holy Land. Until his death in 1788, these letters were mostly written by Menachem Mendel. Abraham Kalisker would either add his signature to them or add greetings at the end. In the early letters, a matter of primary concern was the succession of the Hasidic leadership in White Russia. At first, a triumvirate of Yisra’el Politzker, Yisakhar Bar of Lubavich, and Shne’ur Zalman of Liady was appointed. After the death of the two former leaders, both Menachem Mendel39 and Abraham Kalisker40 wrote letters to Shne’ur Zalman, in 36 Letter published in M. Kliers, Tabur ha-Aretz (Tiberias, 1906), 77–78 (Tevet 1785). 37 See, for example, Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 5, wherein Menachem Mendel complains that his portion from the chasidim of Volhynia has diminished. 38 These “messengers for themselves” often received letters of endorsement from Menachem Mendel and Kalisker, see, for example, letter 11 endorsing Aharon ha-Gadol ben Yitzchaq. They were often also given tasks to perform for the community, see for example, letter 16. See also Yaari, Shluchei Eretz Yisra’el, 615. 39 Heilman, Beit Rabi [1903], 8. 40 Hillman, Igrot, letter 17.

30

A. Introduction

an effort to persuade him to accept the leadership of the chasidim. But at first the rabbi of Liady hesitated. Kalisker, in an effort to overcome Shne’ur Zalman’s doubts, responded that he was glad to receive his letter but unhappy with its contents. There is nothing an individual man could do, even were he to live a thousand years, which would earn him the merit of a teacher of the multitudes. “If I had weighed in the balance of logic before I journeyed to the ‘land of life’ what this mitzvah is . . . perhaps it would have been decisive.” Shne’ur Zalman finally accepted this position, and in later letters, the chasidim are reminded that “all of you are required to honor him, for we annointed him to be the rabbi of your district.”41 Shne’ur Zalman did reciprocate this appointment, as mentioned above, by his enthusiastic activities in support of the chasidim in the Galilee. Some years later, in 1797, the opponents of Hasidism used this activity as a pretext to incriminate him in the eyes of the Russian government.42 The chasidim in Palestine also did not escape the strife caused by the mitnaggedim. The attempt by the mitnaggedim to incite the Sephardic leaders of Tiberias against the chasidim has been mentioned above. In Safed, however, there were Ashkenazim who had no connection with the chasidim, and it is possible that they, too, received letters from Poland and Lithuania. Their description is given in a letter that Menachem Mendel put off until 1781, because he “did not wish to sadden his friends.”43 The Ashkenazim who [have] lived there [since before our arrival] are without knowledge. They beleaguer and oppress the worshippers of the Name. . . . And the new ones who have recently arrived from the provinces of Volhynia, Podolia, Ukraine, for whom we expended a large amount of money; when they saw us in poverty and weakness and [discerned] that they would receive no further aid from us, they joined the others in beleaguering and abusing us.

The relations with the Sephardim were also complicated. The Sephardic community in Tiberias asked the chasidim to dwell among 41 Letter 22. Similar expressions are found in many other letters. See for example, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35. 42 See Heilman, Beit Rabi [1903], 54ff.; and Teitelbaum, Ha-Rav mi-Liady, vol. 1, 72ff. 43 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 1.

2. The Early Years in Palestine: 1777–1788

31

them upon their arrival.44 Menachem Mendel’s son, Moshe, married one of the “well-known and important Sephardim of Jerusalem,”45 meaning, his daughter. In Safed, however, . . . also of the Sephardim we found naught . . . but completely evil men, believers in Shabbetai Tzevi, may his name be blotted out. . . . And the ruler has [also] plotted against us. . . . And because . . . of all that happened to us in Safed . . . at the hands of the ruler I went with Abraham ha-Kohen . . .to the holy city [Tiberias] . . . and we saw clearly that the Sephardim of that holy city are righteous men and earnest . . . and our teacher, R. Abraham, took upon himself the yoke . . . of the ruler of Safed. . . .

In 1780 or 1781, Menachem Mendel moved to Tiberias, no doubt, with a small group of chasidim.46 Abraham Kalisker was left in Safed with the majority of the ‘olim. In a letter written in 1782,47 a Sephardic Jew mentions the dispute between the Sephardim and the new arrivals, but claims that it has ended, and that they dwell now “every man under his vine and under his fig tree.”48 Nevertheless, by 1784–1785, the name of the city of Tiberias had replaced that of Safed at the side of Kalisker’s signature. It may be assumed that by this time, he and most of the chasidim had joined their leader in Tiberias. Even in Tiberias, it would have been impossible for the Sephardim, whose liturgical practices were notably austere and solemn, to pray together with the chasidim, who shouted, clapped, moved about, and sang while they prayed. It is no surprise, then, that not long afterward, Menachem Mendel wrote to his followers that a house had been built for him, “and, within it, a synagogue.”49 This new house must have been a part of the new courtyard which was built for the chasidim a year or two 44 Ibid., letter 29. 45 Ibid. 46 The Jewish settlement in Tiberias had been rebuilt in 1740–41 at the behest of Dahir al-Omar, by B. Chayyim Abulafia. See Ben-Zvi, The Land of Israel Under Ottoman Rule, 307ff. 47 Letter of Ya‘aqov Elishar, in Tal, Chevrah u-Mishtar, 10. 48 I Kings 5:5. 49 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 6. See also the letter of Barukh of Miedzyborz to Menachem Mendel, in which he notes having heard of the building of the synagogue and promises to donate various articles for its use. The letter is found in Liqqutei Amarim, at the beginning of the second part.

32

A. Introduction

earlier. This was not an occasion for rejoicing, however, as it was forced upon them by the Pasha, who demanded a large sum in payment.50 In addition to the expense of paying for the courtyard, the chasidim were faced with a scarcity of food. Most of the grain of that year (1785–1786) was exported to Egypt, where there was a famine.51 Prices rose fourfold.52 The following year, an epidemic lasted for about seven weeks.53 These unexpected expenses severely strained the resources of the chasidim, and they were forced to borrow.54 In addition to these problems, war broke out between Russia and Turkey in August 1787, with Austria joining forces with Russia early in 1788. Since Palestine was a Turkish province, it proved very difficult for funds from Russia to get through to the chasidim. In the confusion of the times, Ya‘aqov Smelaner, embarrassed by his lack of success, apparently planned to resign his office, as the messengers arrived very late.55 The monies which came through Brody were also delayed.56 As a result, the chasidim sought relief elsewhere. For the first time, an emissary was sent to North Africa in 1787.57 A messenger was also sent to Western Europe.58 The chasidim also took to sending the monies through Trieste, instead of Constantinople.59 In addition to all these difficulties, Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk died on the first day of Iyyar 1788. He had been ill for several months.60 Until this time, R.  Abraham had remained in the background; he had accepted Menachem Mendel’s leadership without argument. Though they 50 Kliers, Tabur ha-Aretz, 77–78. 51 Ibid.; Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letters 6, 17. 52 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 6. 53 Ibid., letters 13, 17. 54 Ibid., letters 6, 13, 17, 21. See also Kliers, Tabur ha-Aretz, 77–78. 55 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 22. He may also have feared arrest. 56 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 17. 57 Yaari, Shluchei Eretz Yisra’el, 616. See also the letter published by Yitzhak Rifkind in Zion 5 (1933): 165–167: “the state from which the money comes is in turmoil.” 58 Ibid., 620. This mission seems to have displeased the Sephardim, who regarded Western Europe as their “territory”. Two years later, a compromise was effected, and a joint mission was sent out. In 1791, the Ashkenazim and Sephardim of Tiberias joined their resources “so that they would no longer appear as two sects. . . .” Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration, 36. 59 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 32. See also the letter of Shne’ur Zalman to his followers, written in 1790. Hillman, Igrot, 38ff. 60 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 22.

2. The Early Years in Palestine: 1777–1788

33

were close friends,61 there could be no question of a conflict in authority. Kalisker was, apparently, deeply saddened by the passing of Menachem Mendel. One of the Hasidic emissaries wrote that R.  Abraham had remained in a melancholy state during the year of Vitebsker’s illness and the year following his death.62 Less than a month after the death of Menachem Mendel, Kalisker wrote two letters. In one, he mourned the passing of his friend and asked for support for his son, Moshe, his widow, and his grandchildren.63 In the second, he urged the chasidim to support Moshe and to continue to contribute the same amount to the son as they had to the father. A short while later, these pleas were echoed by Shne’ur Zalman. Apparently, Menachem Mendel’s household suffered after his death. Several years afterwards, his son-in-law was in Poland as an “emissary for himself ”; both Shne’ur Zalman and Barukh of Miedzyborz aided him.64 It is not clear whether he ever returned to Palestine, as his arrival is not acknowledged in any of the extant letters, which usually took note of new arrivals. While still alive, Menachem Mendel had provided for Kalisker to succeed him. He had ordered his son Moshe to “stand at the edge of the shadow of the wisdom of our lord teacher, R. . . . Abraham ha-Kohen.”65 The leadership of the chasidim in Palestine now belonged to Abraham ben Alexander ha-Kohen of Kalisk, “who takes the place of the holiness of our holy teacher Menachem Mendel, may his memory be a blessing . . . in wisdom and awe.”66

61 One of his followers tells us that, during Menachem Mendel’s illness, Kalisker lamented several times: “call back my good brother, the friend of my heart.” He is quoted in Yiddish by Tzevi Hirsh Herker, letter written in Ellul 1789. See Hillman, Igrot, 40f. 62 Hillman, Igrot, 40f. 63 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 23, this letter is known by the title Ashkavta de-Rabi. 64 See the letter by Shne’ur Zalman in Hillman, Igrot, 44. 65 Moshe, the son of Menachem Mendel, in a postscript to Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 24. 66 Shne’ur Zalman, as quoted by Hillman, Igrot, 38ff. The letter was apparently written in 1790.

3. The Mind and the Heart When Abraham Kalisker replaced Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, he seems to have changed few, if any, of his comrade’s practices. Letters containing teachings, news about the Hasidic colony, appeals for funds, and assurances that he, Abraham Kalisker, never desisted from seeking mercy for the chasidim outside Israel continued to be sent annually with the emissaries to White Russia, the Ukraine, and the neighboring areas. The Hasidic ‘aliyah had not ended in 1777. Small groups and individuals continued to come to the Holy Land, most of them to settle.1 The most significant group arrived in 1794. It included one of the former students of Dov Ber of Mezrich, Ya‘akov Shimshon of Shpetiavke.2 The letter from the Hasidic community, dated the following year, announced their arrival: And now to bear witness . . . to the arrival . . . of the R. Ga’on of Shpetiavke, the R. Ga’on of Zaltziv . . . and the R. Yisakhar Bar of Zalb. . . . And we 1 In Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 1, Menachem Mendel encourages the ‘aliyah of Chayyim Krasner “and several other men.” Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 9 notes the return of the emissary Shelomoh Zalman Ha-Kohen “and the ‘olim with him,” Zebi Hirsh of Vitebsk and Gershon Shohet. A letter by Menachem Mendel in 1786 notes the “safe arrival of the ShaDaR [‘emissary of mercy’] and the ‘olim with him” (Heilman, Beit Rabi [1903], 89) and announces the arrival of the messengers “and all those who accompanied them.” 2 He was a Volhynian Hasidic leader and the close friend of Barukh of Miedzyborz. While he lived in Volhynia he was active in support of the chasidim in Palestine, along with Barukh and Levi Yitzchaq of Berdichev. Five years after his arrival in Palestine, he journeyed to Egypt and North Africa to raise funds (see Yaari, Shluchei Eretz Yisra’el, 623). He died and was buried in Tiberias in Sivan 1801. A. Frumkin and E. Rivlin, Toldot Chokhme Yerushalayim (Jerusalem, 1918), vol. 3, 76.

3. The Mind and the Heart

35

must recount that from the day of the arrival of these holy ones, divine glory envelops the head of . . . our teacher, R. Abraham Ha-Kohen, more than ever has been previously seen. In particular these great ones . . . have said that the spirit of the Lord speaks through him. . . .3

That is, these tzaddiqim accepted his authority. Many of the chasidim who came to Palestine did, however, retain some allegiance to their tzaddiqim in the Diaspora and corresponded with them frequently.4 Perhaps the best known of the Hasidic visitors to Palestine during this period was Reb Nachman of Bratzlav.5 He was a young man of twenty-six when he left Kamenetz in 1798.6 On his arrival in Istanbul, he learned that the emissaries returning to Palestine were in the city, and he ordered his companion not to disclose his identity to them. The real purpose of Nachman’s visit to the Holy Land is enshrouded in mystery—he never revealed it. In any case, he did not wish his identity to be known. The emissaries concluded that he was one of those who opposed Kalisker: “It entered their minds that he was going to dispute with . . . our teacher, Abraham Kalisker, may his memory be a blessing, and his followers.” They warned the young tzaddiq that “before his arrival in the land of Israel there would be a letter there saying that he was one of the disputants and the spies.”7 Finally, Nachman revealed his true identity to them. Nachman arrived in Tiberias in the autumn of 1798 and stayed through the winter months. Abraham Kalisker “received him with very great honor, love and affection.”8 Nachman spent a Sabbath at the home of Kalisker, but, when the latter requested that he teach something, he refused. So, Kalisker himself “said Torah.” An interesting description is

3 This letter appears in Birkat ha-Aretz, §342. 4 See for example, A. J. Heschel, “Unknown Documents in the History of Hasidut,” Yivo Bleter 36 (1952), 122–124, no. 3, “A Letter from Mendele Vitebsker, etc.” [Yiddish]. 5 A great-grandson of the Ba‘al Shem Tov, he died in 1810. His voluminous writings reveal an iconoclastic and brilliant stylist, and an insightful and disturbed personality. See J. Weiss, “Some Aspects of R. Nachman of Braslav’s Allegorical SelfInterpretation,” Tarbiz 27 (1958), and the literature cited there. 6 See A. Rappaport, “Two Sources of R. Nachman’s Journey to the Holy Land,” Kiryat Sefer 46, no. 1 (December 1970): 147–153. 7 Natan of Nemirov, Shivchei ha-Ra”N (Lviv, 1901), 86ff. On the dispute alluded to here, see below. 8 Ibid., 12b

36

A. Introduction

provided in Nachman’s biography of the manner in which Kalisker spoke while he was teaching: And the saying of the Torah by the tzaddiq, our teacher, R.  Abraham . . . was with great enthusiasm and much shouting. Not a word could be discerned. Only at the end [when] he concluded “this is the basis of the worship of the Creator” . . . could he be understood.9

Nachman, apparently, admired Kalisker; it is said, that he would praise . . . his teachings without limit . . . and I heard from his [Nachman’s] mouth .  .  . when he said, “Only the tzaddiq, our teacher, R. Abraham has shlemut [integrity, perfection, or wholeness],” and he said to me, “I have seen several tzaddiqim, but shlemut belongs only to that holy tzaddiq.”10

Nachman was about to depart when Ya‘aqov Shimshon of Shpetiavke returned to Palestine from Egypt and Morocco. There had apparently been a feud between Ya‘aqov Shimshon and R.  Abraham. Nachman seems to have effected some sort of compromise between them.11 In the letter Kalisker wrote to Nachman, when he heard of his safe arrival at home, Kalisker speaks of “the compromise we made with the men of the province of Volhynia.” Apparently, the matter concerned the division of funds between the chasidim from Volhynia and those from White Russia. But the settlement effected by Nachman does not appear to have been a lasting one: “We have not yet collected a single penny from them,” says Kalisker, “and we do not know what the end of this matter will be.”12 The fact that there were separate collections in the south (Volhynia, Podolia, and other provinces) and in the north (White Russia) has been noted above. The chasidim who came to Safed and Tiberias from these regions would naturally expect their financial support to come particularly from their home provinces. Up to this time, however, the funds collected from the entire region had been pooled and then divided evenly. The arrival of the Volhynian tzaddiqim and their party must have led to 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., 13b. 12 Natan of Nemirov, Chayyei MoHaRa”N (Lublin, 1921), 33b. This important source was missed by both Halpern and Brawer. See note 40 below.

3. The Mind and the Heart

37

some sort of disagreement over this practice. The compromise referred to in Kalisker’s letter to Nachman was probably an agreement that the chasidim from Volhynia would receive most their support from that region, and those from White Russia would depend on funds raised in their native area. A number of other sources support this assumption. In a letter to R. Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev, some four years after the letter to Nachman, Kalisker complains that there has been great strife ever since “the day when the men of Volhynia were divided from those [of White Russia].”13 In the survey of Palestine taken at the behest of Sir Moses Montefiore in 1839, the Ashkenazic Jews of Tiberias were divided as follows: kolel Volhynia, kolel Russia, and perushim (Lithuanian Jews, followers of Ga’on Eliyahu of Vilna14).15 Finally, a rabbinic work on Tiberias, first published in 1906, notes that the kolel, the fund for the benefit of the Jews from a particular locale, established by Abraham Kalisker and Menachem Mendel, still exists in Tiberias, “that is the kolel called .  .  . kolel Reissin [White Russia].”16 Thus, it is reasonably clear that, sometime between Nachman’s departure from Palestine (1799) and the letter to R. Levi Yitzchak (1805), “the men of Volhynia” and “the men of White Russia” in Safed and Tiberias were divided into two separate groups. In addition, this must have been a time of great confusion in Palestine. In 1799, Napoleon conquered Gaza and Yaffo and laid siege to Acre. In spite of Napoleon’s appeals to the Jews of that town, they and their leader, Chayyim Parhi, remained loyal to Ahmad al-Jazzar in his successful defense of that city. Napoleon’s appeals promised the establishment of a Jewish state, and some North African Jews tied his messages to their messianic hopes. The reaction of the Hasidic community to these events is unknown.17 13 Part of the text of this letter is published in Hillman, Igrot, letter 100. This is based on a manuscript held at the time of writing by the Jewish National and University Library, Heb. Ms. 8 309. 14 On the perushim, see below, Ch. 5. 15 Joseph Meisel, “The Jewish Settlement in Eretz Yisra’el in 1839,” in Y. Ben-Zvi and M. Benayahu, Safed Volume (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1962), 430. 16 Kliers, Tabur ha-Aretz, 76b. 17 On Napoleon in Palestine, see M. Gihon, “Napoleon in Western Galilee in the Spring of 1799,” in his Western Galilee (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1965), 153–64, and idem, “Napoleon’s Siege of Accho,” in Western Galilee, 165–179.

38

A. Introduction

Kalisker must have been deeply troubled during these years. Not only was there difficulty with the division of funds with the Volhynian chasidim, but he was also involved in a far-reaching dispute with Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, which threatened to divide the chasidim of White Russia into two irreconcilable camps. The dispute began with Abraham ha-Kohen’s reaction to Tanya (literally, “we have learned”), Shne’ur Zalman’s magnum opus, which was published for the first time in 1796. Shne’ur Zalman’s writings contain a mixture of mystical and rational elements, as can be seen in the name he chose for his particular type of Hasidism, ChaBa”D. It is an acronym for three concepts or values: chokhmah, binah, and da‘at, literally, “wisdom,” “understanding,” and “knowledge.” These terms are rich in symbolic meaning, especially in the kabbalistic and psychological areas. Indeed, ChaBa”D Hasidism has been termed a kind of “mystical psychology.”18 The word da‘at, for example, has the meaning of rational, empiric knowledge, yet it is also the name of one of the ten sefirot, “spheres” of Divinity in the kabbalistic system. In this sphere, all the higher spheres are combined and flow into the shekhinah.19 The term da‘at, then, can be considered as paradigmatic of ChaBa”D Hasidism, because it expresses the meeting of the two ways, the mystical and the rational. This approach was, unquestionably, a departure from the values of the earlier Hasidic teachers, particularly because, “in Shne’ur Zalman’s system, contemplation was a good in itself.”20 Study was raised to a higher status than that which it had held in the teachings of Ba‘al Shem Tov and Dov Ber. This change represented a kind of compromise with the more traditional Jewish values. Abraham Kalisker reacted very strongly and negatively to this change: My beloved brother,21 . . . I call the God of heaven and earth to testify for me that I have ever desired your righteousness, and my heart has never ceased to cherish affection for you. . . . However, as I live . . . were it not for the holiness 18 Scholem, Major Trends, 340ff. 19 Ibid., 227ff. 20 Louis Jacobs, Tract on Ecstasy (London: Valentine and Mitchell, 1963), 1. 21 This translation of this letter is based, with some corrections and additions, on Nissan Mindel, Rabbi Shneur Zalman, vol. 1 (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1969), 223–225.

3. The Mind and the Heart

of this landand my physical weakness, I would have willingly presented myself to you in person, to meet eye to eye. . . . For this reason I put my hand to my mouth, for silence is good . . . but finally decided otherwise. I shall speak only the most essential words . . . and privileged is he whose words fall upon attentive ears. . . . The news has reached here that half the children of Israel have split and divided up, one here and one there. . . . As for me, I find no gratification in the effort by yourself . . . to push the sun into its sheath, namely, to clothe the words of our . . . teacher of Mezrich—which are the very words of the saintly teacher, the Ba‘al Shem Tov—within the words of the saintly AR’’I [Yitzchak Luria] . . . although all converge in the same place, the Torah speaking its own language, and the Sages speaking their own language. Particularly because of the danger that the rain drives deep and the generation is not attuned. . . . Now I see the Sefer shel Beinonim [that is, the Tanya] which [you] . . . have published, and I find not very much use in it for the saving of souls, for they have often heard the counsel of learned men, “if it is a tradition, learn it by heart, let it be like a song [the wording of which you dare not change],22 and the old is stronger [than the new].” According to the level of the recipients, a single spark would suffice for them . . . , too much oil in the lamp may be the cause of extinguishing it, God forbid. . . . And I call out on their behalf: how can the price of wisdom23 and understanding to a fool be naught? Such was also the custom of our teachers, who were most careful and wary in their words, not to let them be heard by the majority of the chasidim, but only in the way of admonitions, and to bring them into the covenant of faith in the wise; for the word of the Torah should be sparing and pure, little that contains much. . . . I shall not conceal from my beloved brother what is in my heart. I fear that with the multitude of chasidim, perhaps it is, God forbid, the counsel of the sitra achra [“the other side,” the devil] to lose the grain in the chaff, the Merciful spare us. For men of loftiness24 are few, one in a city. . . . Some speak lofty words of wonder and hidden secrets, while

22 A rabbinic saying. See, for example, bSabbath 106b. 23 By implication, this means secret wisdom, Kabbalah. 24 That is, men capable of reaching mystical heights.

39

40

A. Introduction

mixing in all sorts of low passion and evil traits, as I have seen at close range among newcomers to the Land from all the four corners.25 Now therefore, God be with you, man of valor, be strong and strengthen yourself for our people. Look into the individual, the one lowly of spirit and broken of heart, to vivify him with a spark of the living light, in sparing words that will flourish within him .  .  . , leaving the matter hidden to the eye. . . . [Let] suffice for [the community of the chasidim] faith in the wise and recognition of their own deficiency.

Kalisker’s objections thus far may be summarized as follows: Shne’ur Zalman is splitting the Hasidic camp, he departs from the doctrines of their teachers, and his idea of teaching esoteric doctrines to the masses is dangerous. Although, Kalisker continues, Shne’ur Zalman himself can teach the concepts in his book properly, the leaders of the small Hasidic congregations in the towns and villages will be unable to understand, not to mention teach, these doctrines. Kalisker claims, furthermore, that Menachem Mendel had also expressed his reservations about Shne’ur Zalman’s advocacy of the widespread dissemination of esoteric teachings. None of Menachem Mendel’s published works or letters support this claim. Rivka Schatz, a well-known scholar, has written that a certain Hasidic rabbi in Jerusalem told her that such letters exist in manuscript form, but these have not been subject to scholarly examination.26 Kalisker goes on to suggest that yet another danger lurks inShne’ur Zalman’s practices. White Russia might become like the other provinces, where a “chasid one or two years old is called rebbe, and they seek wonders and miracles.” Further, he suggests that perhaps Shne’ur Zalman’s modesty is the cause of his departure from the ways of the masters, as this trait led him to pay little attention to learning the art of leadership. It is for this reason that Abraham ha-Kohen has written to him that, the faster the matter is corrected, the better, lest it reach a state in which correction is impossible. Kalisker informs Shne’ur Zalman that he plans to write to the chasidim 25 This allusion is unclear, perhaps it refers to the Volhynian chasidim, or perhaps to some of Shne’ur Zalman’s followers. See above, the suspicions of Nachman, and below on Eliezer of Disne. 26 Rivka Schatz, “Anti-Spiritualism in Hasidism—Studies in the Teaching of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady” [Heb.], Molad 20 (1963): 515n.6. See Hillman, Igrot, 32.

3. The Mind and the Heart

41

on this subject, and asks him to do the same so that their public views will coincide. At the end of the letter, Kalisker protests against Shne’ur Zalman’s treatment of two men. The first, Aharon ha-Qatan (“the small”), had been Menachem Mendel’s attendant27 and was, apparently, active in White Russia as an emissary. Very likely, he returned to Palestine with a copy of the Tanya and a report of Shne’ur Zalman’s activities. The second was Aharon ha-Levi of Vitebsk. This rabbi had been a follower of Shne’ur Zalman.28 Finally, Kalisker warns Shne’ur Zalman against the practices in Russia. He reminds Shne’ur Zalman of Menachem Mendel’s warning against too much contact with the other nations and against learning their language.29 This point is particularly suggestive, since the unpublished letters written by Menachem Mendel purportedly object to Shne’ur Zalman’s system because it contains elements in common with the position of the maskilim.30 Perhaps, the rationalist elements in ChaBa”D thought led Kalisker and Menachem Mendel to this conclusion. Kalisker also sent his letter to the chasidim together with the one addressed to Shne’ur Zalman. Though it does not mention Kalisker’s adversary by name, the allusions must have been clear to all who read it: “Even though I wrote in the past that I would not write any more to . . . teach. But this year I have seen . . . one of the greatest of tzaddiqim . . . straying from the words of the living God.”31 Kalisker had written two years earlier that he would change his usual practice of including teachings 27 See Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, 20b. 28 See Hillman, Igrot, 32. 29 In 1785, Menachem Mendel wrote, “I am frightened to see the government seeking rapprochement with the Jews and trying to make them equal to the Gentiles in custom and manner. Their officers pay lip service to good will while actually bringing about dissension among friends. The evidence of it is to be found in the story of Egypt. The Zohar explains that the purpose of the Lord, blessed be He, in keeping the Jews in exile in Egypt was to cause the Egyptians to hate them and their manners, in that way making it impossible for Jews ever to be assimilated by the Gentiles and to emulate their ways. The Jews were redeemed only because they did not change their names and language, and never in their hearts acquiesced to Egyptian supremacy.” Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 6. The translation is based on that in Levitats, The Jewish Community in Russia, 45. 30 Schatz, “Anti-Spiritualism in Hasidism.” 31 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 38.

42

A. Introduction

in his letters, “for you have a rabbi”—Shne’ur Zalman.32 He cautions the chasidim against over-emphasizing the intellect at the expense of faith: The fear [or awe, yir’ah] of God, that is wisdom. . . . For this fear is the innermost content, the point from which all spins off and to which all returns. All the worlds are built on it. . . . But Torah [that is, in this case, “study”] and intellectual exercises alone, without prior fear, are divisive, ephemeral, and destructive. . . . Faith and the fear of God, these are the source of blessing and the hidden good. But all intellectual exercises. . . . are the sources of judgement, God forfend; therefore, he who values his soul should be far from them.33

This letter also contains complaints about newcomers, “men well-known in their own land,” who behave in an unseemly fashion. These were undoubtedly followers of Shne’ur Zalman, perhaps including Eli‘ezer of Disne, about whom more will be said below. The following year, Kalisker wrote again to the chasidim. 34 He expressed his sorrow at their strife: “Each one says ‘I am for the Lord . . .’ and sees no fault in himself that perhaps he is mistaken.” The chasidim were to be assured that Kalisker had not strayed from the teachings of Menachem Mendel. Kalisker complained again that year about the newcomers to Tiberias: “They were wise in their own eyes.” These people were probably the followers or supporters of Shne’ur Zalman already mentioned in the earlier letter to the chasidim. Their arrival probably aggravated the controversy. It was undoubtedly also the cause of the suspicions expressed by Kalisker’s emissaries towards Nachman, as described above. Shne’ur Zalman, apparently, did not answer Kalisker’s letter immediately. The first known document written by Shne’ur Zalman concerning this dispute is probably to be dated 1806.35 This is not entirely surprising since, during the first five years following the publication of the Tanya, 32 Hillman, Igrot, letter 47. 33 Hillman, Igrot, letter 49. 34 Hillman, Igrot, letter 61. Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration, attributes one copy of this letter, which appears in Kohen, Birkat ha-Aretz, 71, to a date ten years earlier, based on a misprint there. The other copies, which appear elsewhere, he dates 1798! 35 A letter addressed to Abraham Kalisker. It may be found in Ginze Nistarot: Or Rav, §14; Teitelbaum, Ha-Rav mi-Liady, 231ff., and Hillman, Igrot, 161ff. The date is probably 1806.

3. The Mind and the Heart

43

Shne’ur Zalman was involved in a bitter protracted quarrel with the mitnaggedim in Lithuania. He was jailed at the end of 1797 and remained incarcerated until November 15, 1798. At the end of 1800, he was again arrested and jailed for three weeks.36 The fact that there was no reply from Shne’ur Zalman seems to have troubled Kalisker. It is also possible that the funds from White Russia were delayed because of Shne’ur Zalman’s arrest or, perhaps, in reaction to Kalisker’s letter. In his letter to Nachman,37 Kalisker writes that he does not know what is happening in White Russia, nor, he implies, have funds arrived from there. He also implies that he expected Nachman to travel to that area to explain his situation to the chasidim. There is, however, no indication in any of the biographies of Nachman that he actually undertook this journey. In any case, it was at this time that the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim of Tiberias joined together in the division of funds sent for support of the Jews in their community.38 It would seem that this action was prompted by the financial difficulties of Kalisker’s followers at this time. The merger probably affected monies raised in North Africa and Western Europe. In 1801, Kalisker wrote a long letter to Shne’ur Zalman, in which he tells the story of Eli‘ezer of Disne,39 who was a follower of the ChaBa”D leader. Together with Yisra’el Kozianer, he began to disparage R. Abraham and his teachings in public. They spread calumny and lies about him and his followers. Eli‘ezer approached the R.  of Shpetiavke and abused Kalisker in strong terms. He threatened to report Kalisker to Yitzchak Abulafia. 40 The R. of Shpetiavke was so opposed to Eli‘ezer that he intened to pronounce a ban on Eli‘ezer, and only Kalisker could dissuade him. Then 36 On this dispute see Heilman, Beit Rabi [1903], 54ff.; and Teitelbaum, Ha-Rav mi-Liady, part 1, 72ff. 37 Natan of Nemirov, Chayyei MoHaRa”N, 33b: “We have not been saved from any place. And we have no inkling of what is happening in White Russia.” It is surprising that Abraham Ya‘aqov Brawer, “On the Quarrel between R. Shne’ur Zalman of Lyady and R. Abraham of Kalisk,” Kiryat Sefer 1 (July–November 1924): 142–149, 226–238, does not mention this important source. 38 See above, note 123. 39 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 1. 40 He was the appointee of Chayyim Parhi and governed Safed and Tiberias. Frumkin and Rivlin, Toldot Chokhme Yerushalayim, part 3, 139.

44

A. Introduction

Eli‘ezer went to Yitzchak Abulafia, day after day, and told him of the dispute between Shne’ur Zalman and R. Abraham. The official did not believe Eliezer, who thereupon showed him two letters from Shne’ur Zalman. The first letter instructed Eli‘ezer not to have any dealings with Kalisker and not to sign any notes together with him. The second letter was sent secretly to Kalisker’s scribe Eli‘ezer Zusman by Shne’ur Zalman. That letter purportedly indicated that the ChaBa”D leader planned to stop supporting the settlement in Palestine, and that he would send not one more coin. Kalisker, as is evidenced in this letter, now believed that Shne’ur Zalman had, at least, threatened, to cut off support of the chasidim in the Galilee. And he was persuaded that Shne’ur Zalman has reacted in great anger to what Kalisker claimed were sincere criticisms of the Tanya. Nevertheless, he wrote that, “what is passed has passed,” and expressed hope that their friendship could be renewed. To this end, he sent an emissary—R. Me’ir—to speak personally with Shne’ur Zalman himself. At this point, matters become rather confused. There are no published letters for the years between 1801 and 1805. In the absence of source material, it is difficult to reconstruct what happened. Conflicting versions are to be found in the later letters of Abraham Kalisker to Shne’ur Zalman. In 1802, R.  Me’ir carried the letter about Eli‘ezer of Disne and Kalisker’s personal remarks to Shne’ur Zalman.41 He attempted to resolve the conflict, but without success. Shne’ur Zalman had been informed by some unnamed persons, probably Eli‘ezer and his companions, that Kalisker was insincere in his entreaties.42 R. Me’ir returned to Palestine,43 when he undoubtedly reported to Kalisker that Shne’ur Zalman continued to harbor animosity toward him. Kalisker then gave new instructions to R. Me’ir and sent him back to Liady. This time, both R. Me’ir and. R. Tzevi Hirsh Herker met with Shne’ur Zalman. R. Abraham had instructed them that, if there was no possibility to change the views of the ChaBa”D’s leader “in earthly and heavenly matters,” then “they should make it known in my name that I do not

41 Letter by Shne’ur Zalman, see note 38. 42 Letter by Shne’ur Zalman, see note 38. 43 Ibid.

3. The Mind and the Heart

45

wish the direction of contributions to remain with him in any manner.”44 According to Kalisker, Shne’ur Zalman insulted them and sent them away. At the same time, again according to Kalisker, Shne’ur Zalman witheld the contributions for the chasidim in Palestine for the years 1803 and 1804. At the end of 1803, Shne’ur Zalman did send the small amount of 127 adumim with Aharon ha-Gadol of Pukshin. These were funds collected by Ya‘aqov of Smela, and they were specifically designated for his friends and relatives. Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev acted as an intermediary in this transaction.45 During that year and most of the next one, Chayyim Mashrat was kept in Liady by Shne’ur Zalman. Apparently, he was another messenger of R. Abraham. Shne’ur Zalman sent Chayyim to Palestine at the end of the year 1804 with a portion of the funds which he was to give to Kalisker only under a certain condition, as Kalisker explains to the chasidim in a “great announcement” in 1805: . . . R. Shne’ur Zalman has written to me in his own hand…that if I agree with him [and the HaBa’’D system] I must put it in writing immediately, whereupon I will receive 800 adumim for the years 5563 and 5564 [1808 and 1804].46

Kalisker refused to write such a letter. Furthermore, he stated that he would not even accept that portion of the money which was intended for his personal use. He also stated that he had written to R. Me’ir, whom he asked to investigate whether or not that money was given conditionally as well. If so, he states, every penny will be returned. At this time, R. Me’ir was engaged in reorganizing the collections for the chasidim in Palestine. Kalisker wrote to him that at least he has found “comfort in this, that his yoke has been lifted from my neck. . . . I was always troubled because he forced me to write things against my will.” 44 Part of the text of this letter is published in Hillman, Igrot, letter 100. This is based on a manuscript held at the time of writing by the Jewish National and University Library, Heb. Ms. 8 309. 45 Hillman, Igrot, letter 98. 46 Hillman, Igrot, letter 97. Before Chayyim left, he went to see Levi Yitzchaq and told him of what Shne’ur Zalman had done, but received no sympathy. This, according to Levi Yitzchaq, is a lie. See his letter to Kalisker, in Hillman, Igrot, 171.

46

A. Introduction

Kalisker explained that, at first, he was willing to do this for the sake of the poor, for the honor of the Holy Land, and in the hope that R. Shne’ur Zalman would finally give ear to his advice. But now “he has abandoned the poor of the Land.” The letter concluded with words of encouragement to R. Me’ir.47 Kalisker also wrote to Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev, who had apparently asked to hear R. Abraham’s side of the dispute. The answer summarized the events just described and added the ideological criticism, stating that Shne’ur Zalman has departed from the teachings of Dov Ber. Kalisker stated that, in essence, he had been trying to persuade Shne’ur Zalman of the centrality of faith: “The righteous [tzaddiq] shall live by his faith.”48 Kalisker also added that Menachem Mendel had expressed a lack of confidence in the leadership of Shne’ur Zalman.49 Levi Yitzchak showed this letter to Shne’ur Zalman, to whom he refers as his bother-in-law (their grand-children had married). It is clear from Shne’ur Zalman’s letter of 1805 that he did read Kalisker’s letter, because in it, he answers the various charges made by Kalisker and gives his version of the events of the previous year in great detail.50 At the beginning of the letter, Shne’ur Zalman implies that much of the fault for the dispute lies with slanderers who have lied about the conditions in White Russia.51 Then he reminds R. Abraham of the many friendly and flattering letters he has sent during the past twenty-two years. These were sincerely meant, “and were not merely to gratify my wish as you have written to my mehutan, the saintly Ga’on, the . . . rabbi of Berdichev.” How can it be imagined that all your [flattering] letters for twenty-five years were insincere, in order to strengthen the settlement in the land of Israel. . . . And if it is so, how much more likely is the assumption that your present [flattering] letters are only for the purpose of strengthening

47 Hillman, Igrot, letter 96. 48 Habakkuk 2:4. On the centrality of this concept in Kalisker’s teachings, see Ch. 4. 49 See above note 48. 50 Letter by Shne’ur Zalman. See note 37. 51 Levi Yitzchaq, in his answer to Kalisker, also attributes the dispute to Kalisker’s having believed lies told to him by his messengers. Hillman, Igrot, 171ff.

3. The Mind and the Heart

47

the settlement in the land of Israel, [and for that reason; they gratify the wishes of the men of Vilna, Lakhovitz, Lubavich, and Miedzyborz.52

Shne’ur Zalman goes on to describe his version of what happened when the various messengers from R. Abraham arrived in Liady: No sooner had they come to us in the winter of 5562, then they began to speak only well and to console me for your letters of 5558.53 They asked me to burn them. . . . I answered, “But there are those who contradict you and say that [the entreaties of friendship] are insincere.” Whereupon they bitterly lamented, how can one think that as great a man as he [Kalisker] is . . . would cause thousands of souls . . . to be abandoned because of a financial matter.

Apparently, Shne’ur Zalman refers here to R.  Me’ir’s first visit. Shne’ur Zalman indicates that he himself was unsure of Kalisker’s sincerity and trusted the reports of “those who contradict you,” that is, probably, Eli‘ezer of Disne and his cohorts. Kalisker’s unwillingness, as indicated by the messengers, “to abandon thousands of souls because of a financial matter” seems to corroborate R. Abraham’s claim that he was forced by Shne’ur Zalman to do things against his will.54 The rabbi of Liady then takes up the argument about the centrality of faith. He claims, on the basis of a passage from the Zohar, that binah (“understanding”) is the mother of the banim (“children”): love and fear of God, “and what begets them is knowledgeable contemplation in depth. And just as no children can be born without a mother, so it is impossible to be God-fearing without contemplation.” He goes on to criticize the level of learning of the messengers whom R. Abraham sent to Liady: “They are not versed in Torah learning. . . . . Suffice it to call them literate. . . . Whoever saw such a thing, to place such a great and weighty matter . . . into the hand of messengers?” Then Shne’ur Zalman reacts to the criticism that he has departed from the doctrines of his teachers. He 52 This allusion is undoubtedly to tzaddiqim in the towns to which Kalisker has written for support, now that he no longer enjoys the help of Shne’ur Zalman, R. Mordekhai of Lakhovitz, and R.  Barukh of Miedzyborz. It is not clear who was in Vilna or Lubavich. See below. 53 That is, the letter sent the previous year, which arrived in 5558 [1798]. See Hillman, Igrot, letter 35. 54 See, for example, the letter abbreviated in Hillman, Igrot, letter 100.

48

A. Introduction

responds with an attack on Kalisker, reminding him of the events of 1772, some thirty-four years earlier, Shne’ur Zalman claims that the behavior of Kalisker’s chasidim was the cause of the ban proclaimed against all the chasidim at that time55: “As for mundane matters concerning the Holy Land, is this the way of a God-fearing man—to open his mouth and speak with arrogance on the basis of hearsay? What you have heard is only half the matter. . . .” He finally proceeds to describe what happened in 1803, when he was confronted again with Abraham Kalisker’s messengers. When they requested that Shne’ur Zalman abolish his organization, “so that they themselves could . . . establish new sources, among real friends not belonging to ChaBa”D,” he asked them how they could do it in so short a time. They answered that they would be content with the third raised by Ya‘aqov of Smela. Shne’ur Zalman says that he “refused to heed their request, in order not to . . . create separate groups in every town. . . .” They answered that, if they could not raise the money in White Russia themselves, then they would accept not a single penny collected by Shne’ur Zalman. And they maintained that they had “firm promises from the tzaddiqim of Volhynia and the Ukraine for the approximate amount needed . . . and they would not depend on our country at all, or be subjected to ChaBa”D.” It is at least as likely that Kalisker is telling the truth as it is that Shne’ur Zalman is correct. If the latter’s account is to be accepted, then Kalisker wished to free himself from the implied authority of Shne’ur Zalman, since he controlled a significant proportion of the funds upon which the chasidim in Palestine were dependent. If Kalisker’s account is to be believed, then Shne’ur Zalman tried to use his control of the monies to force Kalisker to renounce his opposition to the ChaBa”D school. The rift was not healed, and a new fundraising organization was set up in White Russia. The letters of R. Me’ir56 and R. Abraham57 indicate that R.  Mordekhai of Lakhovitz58 stood at the head of it. These letters praise R.  Mordekhai in precisely the same language formerly used for Shne’ur Zalman: “Your eyes behold your teacher.” In Volhynia, Barukh of Miedzyborz came to the aid of R. Abraham and his followers. 55 On this matter, see above, Ch. 1. 56 Hillman, Igrot, 183. 57 Ibid., letter 105. 58 He was a disciple of Shelomoh of Karlin, l742–1810.

3. The Mind and the Heart

49

Although he is not mentioned in any of Kalisker’s extant letters, R.  Asher of Stulin was also connected with the new organization. Sometime between 1801 and 1810, he issued the following public proclamation: Since there is controversy in every city and village . . . and others indicate that they, too, desire the High Priesthood59 for themselves for their own benefit, . . . be it known that the rabbi and teacher of the land of Israel has written of such men that they may know that what they do is at the peril of their own souls. . . . It has been clearly declared that the . . . funds [for the Holy Land ‫ ן‬should be placed in my hands.60

The relationship in this matter between R.  Asher61 and R.  Mordekhai, both of whom were Lithuanian-White Russian tzaddiqim, is unclear. It is clear, however, that the ChaBa”D chasidim were now a separate group. They would exist virtually independent of the rest of the chasidim in White Russia and Lithuania. This cleavage probably would have happened even if there had been no dispute between Abraham Kalisker and Shne’ur Zalman. But there is little question that the controversy served to harden the ideological differences between ChaBa”D and the rest of the chasidim. Although the exact role of financial matters in precipitating the dispute remains in question, as there are undoubtedly numerous letters which have been lost, or await discovery, the real significance of the dissension lies elsewhere. Kalisker’s letters defending the anti-intellectual character of early Hasidism represent a clear and accessible treatment of the most radical aspects of the doctrine. They provide an important source of information about its appeal. For this reason, it is important now to move on to an analysis of his teachings.

59 An allusion to R. Abraham ha-Kohen, “the priest.” 60 This proclamation may be found in Dubnow, Toldot Ha-Chasidut, 483; Hillman, Igrot, 186; and V. Rabinovich, Lithuanian Hasidism [Heb.] (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1961), 64ff. 61 D. 1825. He was the son of R. Aharon ha-Gadol of Karlin.

4. The Teachings There is very little that is original in the few teachings of R. Abraham that have been preserved.1 Nevertheless, the major themes emerging from his writings are precisely those that were the most important elements in early Hasidism. These include the primacy of simple faith because of its common availability, with a concomitant stress on the common person and the development of a new religious communal form. In the teachings of Ba‘al Shem Tov,2 the founder of the movement, religious experience, or faith, was given primacy over study. Kalisker, of course, did not say that a chasid should not study at all. But he sensed that there was grave danger in revealing too much, particularly with esoteric doctrines, “Only headings [ra’shei praqim] should be revealed to the wise . . . that they may turn them over [that is, study them repeatedly].”3 Each day, one should review these teachings as though they were given on that day.4 Indeed, this was the practice of Kalisker himself when he studied with Dov Ber. “Each teaching was enough for me for a very long time.”5 1 Aside from the letters, some of Kalisker’s teachings appear in Chesed le-Abraham. This includes only about twelve pages of what are apparently sermons based on the weekly readings from the Torah. The introduction explains that they were first brought to the printer at the request of Barukh of Miedzyborz. 2 Scholem, Major Trends, 340, has said that Hasidism itself contributed little that was original to Jewish thought; it merely reordered the priority of values. Even the stress on emunah (faith) over study was not originated by the BeSh”T. See idem, “Devekuth or Communion with God,” Review of Religions 14 (January 1950): 119. 3 Peri ha-Aretz (Kopyst, 1813 [5574]), 34b–35a. 4 Ibid. 5 Hillman, Igrot, letters 35, 49.

4. The Teachings

51

It would seem that this emphasis on faith over learning in favor of faith arises from two concerns. The first of these is a fear of the effects of “too much learning.” It can lead a man away from the community of the faithful. While “the fear of the Lord is wisdom, the reverse is not the case.”6 It is faith, and not knowledge, which is the foundation: “It is a well-known principle that faith is the basis of everything, as it is said, Habakkuk came and reduced them to one: the righteous tzaddiq shall live by his faith.”7 “Faith has no limits, with it man begins, and with it he ends.”8 “All things are built upon faith . . . without faith there could be no quality of love or fear. . . .”9 “A believer will be anxious about nothing, for, beside faith, there is nothing.”10 “Great is faith . . . in that it supercedes human reasoning.”11 Aside from the dangers inherent in learning, there is a second problem. Not everyone can study—some lack the time and others the ability. If study is the highest value in the religious community, then the legitimacy and status of the unlearned members is diminished. But “faith is the simplest of things, it is equally attainable by every person.”12 In the

6 Ibid., letter 49. 7 Chesed le-Abraham, 45a–b. The full saying, which is found in the bMakkot 23b, is:

R. Simlai said, six hundred and thirteen commandments were delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai; three hundred and sixty-five of which are prohibitive laws . . . , while the remaining two hundred and forty-eight are affirmative injunctions. . . . David came and reduced them to eleven, as it is said: “Lord, who shall abide in thy Tabernacle .  .  .” [Psalms 15:2–5 contains eleven injunctions]. Then Isaiah came and reduced them to six, as it is said, “He that walks righteously . . .” [Isaiah 33:15]. Then Micha came and reduced them to three, “He that showed thee, O man what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly . . .” [Micha 6:8]. Then Isaiah came again and reduced them to two, as it is said, “Thus says the Lord, keep my judgements and do justice.” [Isaiah 56:1]. Then Amos cam and reduced them to one, as it is said, “Seek the Lord and live” [Amos 5:6]. Habakkuk reduced them to one, as it is said, “But the righteous shall live by his faith” [Habakkuk 2:4].

8 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 32. 9 Chesed le-Abraham, 45b. 10 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 38. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., letter 32.

52

A. Introduction

emphasis on emunah (“faith”), Kalisker “is evidently under the influence of . . . R. Menachem Mendel.”13 The question of the content of this emunah now arises. Precisely what was the meaning of this term? “Faith,” Ba‘al Shem Tov once said, “is the intimate communion of the soul with God.”14 That is, faith is identified with devequt, “attachment” to Divinity. The teachings of BeSh”T emphasize the immanence of a divine light, or spark, in everything; there is no place devoid of Him. “Devequt is communion with this inner light.”15 A man should purify himself, Kalisker taught, “so that even in matters of this world he will be able to speak in such a way that the whole source of his intention will be for the sake of heaven . . . and even in those wordshe is attached [dabuq] to his Creator.”16 This is man’s purpose; he must seek to discover the spiritual [ruchani] in the material [gashmi]. A man, in everything he does, even in material things—eating, drinking, and so on—should attach himself to the quality of chokhmah [“wisdom,” “thought,” or “contemplation”], which enlivens everything, and throw off all the delights of this world.  .  .  . And when his soul [nafsho], his spirit [rucho], and his neshamah [“second soul”] are attached to and feeding at the breasts of chokhmah, he will be annihilated [le-hibatel] in the core of the Life of Life. . . . His is true devequt.17

Here, Kalisker echoes the extreme mystical doctrines of his master Dov Ber. Only one other passage in his writings is devoted to the mystical experience: For the true worshipper of the Creator . . . , there falls upon him at the time of his worship—enthusiasm [hitlahabut], and he experiences so much delight that all the desires of this world are removed from his heart and are as they had no importance. . . And all the delights in all the world and all the possible delights of the world are not even comparable to a

13 J. G. Weiss, “R.  Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Men,” Journal of Jewish Studies 6, no. 2 (1955): 87. [in this current volume, 75-89–Ed.] 14 Toldot Ya‘aqov Yosef, 195b, as quoted in Scholem, “Devekuth,” 120. 15 Scholem, “Devekuth,” 123. 16 Chesed le-Abraham, 43b. 17 Ibid., 47a.

4. The Teachings

53

drop in the ocean of the true delight in the worship of the Holy One, blessed be He, and blessed be His name.18

Mystical ideas, however, are not central in Kalisker’s thought. “The relationship between man and man is the pivot round which the thoughts of R. Abraham revolve: time and again he comes back to this theme which seems to hold him in a spell.19 Dov Ber had developed the doctrine of hasagat ha-ayin, the achievement of the mystical nihil. In one of Kalisker’s teachings, this concept is shifted from the mystical to the social plane. . . . the final aim of Torah and chokhmah . . . is to attain the perfect ayin, wherefore a man should render his self non-existent; the very source of wisdom is ayin. Ayin is its very root, and from this root grow humility and lowliness, even as our sages said: “The Torah is fulfilled only by him who makes himself like the desert, free to poor and rich alike, and who regards himself as no greater than his fellow man, but feels ‘non-existent’ before him. In this way they are integrated one into the other.” . . .20

In one exposition of the talmudic adage that “all Israel is linked one to another,”21 Kalisker repeats the idea that a man should feel “small” or “non-existent” before his fellow man. He explains that all the people of Israel correspond to letters of the Torah in various combinations.22 This means that “they are all equal in goodness,” but that “the root or core of one is not the root of the other.”23 This is [the meaning of the phrase] “Israel is linked one to the other” and [they are] linked in the following way. Each is included in his friend, and each can raise his friend when truly attached to his main quality, which is his root, which resulted from the combination of letters. But his friend cannot be raised by him unless he [the former] makes himself small before him. For in each person there is something which is not in his friend. And 18 Ibid., 46b. 19 Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 90. 20 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 32, see Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 89. 21 bShebu’ot 3a. 22 On the origin of this idea, see Gershom Scholem, On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism (New York: Schocken Books, 1969), 47 and 64ff. 23 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 10.

54

A. Introduction

even if someone is greater than his friend—there is one quality in which his friend exceeds him—and it is clear that if one is careful to make one self small before one’s friend, and the friend, does the same, then “Those who fear God will speak with one another, and God will attend and hear,”24 and answer them speedily . . . with blessing, mercy, life, and peace…25

Another instance in which Kalisker expounds the doctrine that divine favor is somehow related to the attachment of man to man will be encountered below. Before dealing with that, however, it is necessary to comment further upon the concept of devequt. In spite of the popularization of devequt by BeSh”T and his followers, it remained clear that no one could continually maintain such a state. When a man fell from devequt, he was estranged from God, and Ba‘al Shem Tov felt that, at such a time, man should devote himself to worldly matters. At the same time, he ought to try to meditate upon the spiritual side of these apparently material undertakings. This state of estrangement was called qatnut (“smallness”), as opposed to gadlut (“largeness”).26 In Ba‘al Shem Tov’s perception, then, “the spiritual vitality of man is subject to the principle of alternation.”27 Abraham Kalisker offered a novel interpretation for the concept of qatnut. As typial of his approach, Kalisker changed the meaning of qatnut from a negative spiritual state to the key to a positive social value, which he called dibbuq chaverim (mutual attachment of friends). The late Prof. J. G. Weiss devoted a scholarly article to this subject.28 There is a technical matter which merits clarification prior to an analysis of the content of the materials. Weiss’s article is based on a letter written by Abraham Kalisker, “unfortunately undated,” which appears in the appendix of some editions of Peri ha-Aretz by R. Menachem Mendel (Kopyst, 1814). Weiss notes that in this letter, Kalisker moves from a 24 Malachi 3:16. 25 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 10. Compare with Peri ha-Aretz, 34b–35a, where Kalisker discusses the idea that the people of Israel correspond to the letters of the Torah as well. 26 Scholem, “Devekuth,” 130. 27 Agus, The Evolution of Jewish Thought, 339. 28 Weiss, “R.  Abraham Kalisker’s Concept.” This concept also appealed to S. Zwiefel, who quoted the relevant passages in his Shalom al Yisra’el (Zitomyr, 1868), part 2, 46–51.

4. The Teachings

55

discussion of such matters as the achievement of ayin and the centrality of faith, “without apparent logical transition . . . to an exposition of the concept of devequt.29 The fact is that Weiss had before him sections of two distinct letters, the first written about a year before the second. Yisra’el Halpern, in an appendix to his work on the Hasidic immigration to Palestine, lists a complete chronological bibliography of the letters sent by the Hasidic leaders to their followers in Europe.30 Sections of the first letter31 are to be found in two other works. Halpern dates it Nisan 1790. The minor variations in the different texts might be explained by the following passage in the version which appears in Birkat ha-Aretz: “Because it is a time of trouble, I have today . . . told the scribe to write two or three letters like this one . . . and to send them via three letters like this one . . . and to send them via three places. . . .”32 It is in the next letter, which Halpern dates after Sivan 1791, that Kalisker develops his exposition of devequt and dibbuq chaverim. Abraham Kalisker reevaluted the concept of qatnut by basing a new and important social ethic upon it: Just because there is not a man who is never subject to qatnut.  .  .  . He clearly commanded us in His Torah “Love thy neighbor as thyself ” (Leviticus 19:18); for love brings about devequt—the clinging together of many as one man. Similarly, there is no person who does not at one time or another experience the influx of true devequt while his fellow man is idle. When they regard themselves as one, it can be gained by him through devequt of his companion and through the latter’s cleaving to God. . . .33

Thus, the period of qatnut is to be welcomed as an opportunity to fulfill the commandment of loving one’s neighbor, and it was just because all men are subject to such periods of decline in their spiritual lives that this commandment was given. And, far from being “considered as one who serves other gods,” as Ba‘al Shem Tov once said, he who is in qatnut now has the opportunity to focus his soul on his fellow men.34 When devequt 29 Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 90. 30 Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration, 50–79. 31 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 32. 32 Ibid. 33 Chibbat ha-Aretz, 64b–65a; see Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 92. 34 As quoted in Scholem, “Devekuth,” 121.

56

A. Introduction

with God is impossible, its object becomes man, and this, as Kalisker explains, amounts to the same as devequt with God. If there is a group of men who are “as one,” then some of them are bound to be in qatnut and others in gadlut. Thus, devequt is achieved for all men when they cleave to one another. Kalisker now begins his exposition of the concept dibbuq chaverim (“attachment of friends” to each other). The term first appears in the Mishnah Avot 6:5.35 Kalisker’s use of the term makes it clear, however, that the words dibbuq and devequt are from the same root, which gives the term a mystical significance. “And thus within the dibbuq chaverim who hearken intently to the voice of God, Torah, and mitzvah are certainly extended and continued through devequt with men who are themselves cleaving to God.”36 Dibbuq chaverim is thus tantamount to being in devequt with God. It is a wonderful boon for the individual to have continuously the advantage of divine providence through his associates who are attached in devequt with God, .  .  . and it is possible that this is the meaning of the saying “A person to whom misfortune has happened . . . should inform others of his suffering, those others being persons who seek Heaven’s mercy on his behalf.” The rabbis did not say that others “should seek” mercy for him, but that they do—as a matter of course—seek mercy, evidently, this dictum speaks to someone who conducts himself in accordance with Torah and its central principle, namely, the mitzvah “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Now if some misfortune should befall him, at a time such as has been described, all he needs to do is to make his misfortune known to the many with whom he is in a relationship of devequt and who are themselves protected by divine providence from suffering and distress by 35 Menachem Mendel, in a letter dated 1781, Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, 5a–b, also uses the term dibbuq chaverim. There it seems to mean a confessional relationship, though it is not clear whether it involved two or more persons. See Weiss, “R.  Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 97f. The idea is expounded by Menachem Mendel in a similar manner in letter 18. B. Z. Dinaburg, “The Beginnings of Hasidism and Its Social and Messianic Elements,” Zion 9, no. 4 (1944): 195ff., quotes an earlier and similar conception of communion with men and with God from Moshe of Satanov, Sefer Mishmeret ha-Qodesh (Zolkiev, 1746), “The Laws of Minhah and the Third Meal,”— “It is good to be attached to God with devequt of the heart and soul . . . and we cannot be attached to Him until we are attached to one another.” See also below. 36 Chibbat ha-Aretz, 64b–65a; see Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 93.

4. The Teachings

57

the abundance of their devequt with God. Thus those who are in trouble live under the divine protection which shields them.  .  .  . In order that the perfect ones might suffer neither pain nor grief, he, too, will have become aware of his grief. Thus the communication of one’s distress to the contemplative colony in itself constitutes a seeking of mercy.37

The affiliation of the individual with the dibbuq chaverim will result in the extension of divine providence to him. He participates in devequt even though he is unable to achieve it himself, by virtue of the devequt between himself and the other members who are in devequt with God and with whom he is “as one.” The group then becomes a source of emotional security; the individual’s love for the other members of the group will protect him from misfortune. When a person is in qatnut and is not a part of such a group, he is in a perilous state, cut off from the source of all blessing and protection. In dibbuq chaverim, he is supported by a community of social mystics, of men who regard the commandment to “love thy neighbor as thyself ” as fundamental to all the principles that guide their spiritual lives. Each one is devoted to the spiritual uplifting of the others. At the end of his letter, Kalisker urges his followers to seek peace and never to abandon living in community, for therein lies their salvation. He does not mention the idea of devequt with God, which may possibly mean that, for him, the concept of dibbuq chaverim was no mere rationale for qatnut—it was the central emphasis of his teaching. Devequt with men has replaced devequt with God. The one has become the equivalent of the other. To live in a true community of men is the equivalent of the ultimate mystical experience of the love of God. Kalisker ends his letter with an admonition: . . . and if, Heaven forbid, his heart urges . . . him to separate himself from the fellowship of men, let him hasten swiftly to his spiritually stronger brethren, who truly and intently obey the voice of God, and say to them, “my brethren-in-soul, save me and let me hear the word of God that He may heal my broken heart.” Moreover, let this man school himself to fill his heart with love for his fellow even if it should lead to the departure of the soul. Let him persevere in this until his soul and the soul of his 37 Chibbat ha-Aretz, 64b–65a; see Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 93.

58

A. Introduction

brethren cleave together. And when they have all become as one, God will dwell in their midst, and they will receive from Him . . . an abundance of salvation and consolation. . . . 38

While the problems inherent in the achievement of true devequt are herein assumed, concern has shifted from the mystical to the social plane. If Dov Ber’s teachings about devequt constitute a “mystical anthropology,”39 then Kalisker has created a kind of “mystical sociology.” One key issue in the understanding of this concept is the question of the role of the tzaddiq, the charismatic leader of the Hasidic group. Can the idea of dibbuq chaverim mean that chasidim should attach themselves to the tzaddiq, “the latter constituting devequt in his own person and all of them receiving a share of Providence through devequt with him.”40 If so, little but terminology would separate Kalisker’s ideas from those of many of his contemporaries. The following is the key passage: . . . for all the members of the body receive divine providence through being connected with the brain and heart, and these receive more divine providence and protection than all the other parts of the body, since they are closer to the life-essence [chiyyut], and to the attachment, and to the devequt. Nevertheless, by way of these all other parts of the body are also recipients of Providence. “A mitzvah brings a mitzvah in its train, and a transgression brings a transgression in its train.” [This] has been said not necessarily of one person, but of all who cleave to a perfect man [my emphasis]. Is it not possible that anyone attached to him is the more readily drawn—by reason of being bound to him—to holy deeds and, similarly, to transgressions? Indeed, it is clearly taught in our teaching: “When it is well with the righteous man, it is well with his neighbor, etc.” And thus within the dibbuq chaverim who hearken intently to the voice of God, mitzvah and torah [here, “learning”] are certainly extended and continued through devequt with men, who are themselves attached [debuqim] to God.41

38 39 40 41

Chibbat ha-Aretz, 64b–65a; see Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 94. Scholem, “Devekuth,” 129. Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 93. Chibbat ha-Aretz, 64b–65a; see Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 92ff.

4. The Teachings

59

Although Weiss grants that the first part of the passage clearly refers to the tzaddiq, he claims that the use of the plural: “men who are themselves cleaving, etc.,” clearly implies that Tzaddiqism, “to R. Abraham, is but one form of the varieties of dibbuq chaverim. . . . It is the first time in the history of Hasidism that clear expression is given to the idea of the value of the Hasidic community per se as distinct from its dependence on the tzaddiq.”42 Some of the passages quoted above seem to confirm Weiss’s thesis. The group as a group seems to have independent value. Nevertheless, the clear allusions to the tzaddiq do cast some doubt on his sweeping statement. The use of the plural in the passage quoted above could also refer to several tzaddiqim. In a letter written some three years after the one that Weiss analyzed, Kalisker expounds similar ideas, but in a much more conventional fashion. In Peri ha-Aretz it immediately follows the letter written in 1791, yet Weiss does not mention it anywhere. This letter contains a long didactic section, in which Kalisker recounts his sermon of the Sabbath following the fast day of the Ninth of Av. The letter begins with a discussion of how one can pray for mercy, which implies the assumption of the possibility of change in the divinely ordained order. Kalisker explains that God desires, and delights in, the prayers of the righteous tzaddiqim. For this reason, He contradicts, as it were, His mercy, and He causes the tzaddiqim to pray and beseech mercy before Him. And when God fulfills their requests, it is not a change of His will, for this was His desire from the outset. In order to beseech God to fulfill human desires, the tzaddiq must descend from the upper realms of devequt, which are beyond time. Though such a descent may be periodically necessary, the tzaddiq would want it to be of the shortest duration possible. For this reason, the Holy One will grant his requests quickly, in order to facilitate his rapid return to the heights. In his state of descent, the tzaddiq unites with, and encompasses, the whole of Israel, who are, in turn, attached [debuqim] to him. As a result, the abundance of “light,” which the tzaddiq formerly had, is reduced.

42 Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 93.

60

A. Introduction

But God gives him the strength to rise thence to the “mountain of God,” along with all those who are attached to him in true devequt. Thus, this descent of the tzaddiq is necessary in order to raise all those chaverim who are cleaving [debekim] to him. . . . In this way, all of them, even the smallest and the lowest, have benefited by their attachment [hitchabrutam] and cleaving to those who worship God in truth.43

The next section of the letter contains an interesting treatment of the idea of chiddushei Torah (novellae on the Torah). By citing the wellknown adage that each Israelite corresponds to a letter of divine writ, Kalisker transforms this idea from a doctrine expressing the value of new ways of understanding the Torah to one which expresses the raising the spiritual level of the people. This is what happens when the tzaddiq raises them up; he reveals, as it were, aspects of Revelation that were formerly hidden.44 Subsequently, Kalisker dwells on the necessity for the tzaddiq to descend and join himself with the community of Israel. This benefits not only those whom he raises up, but also the tzaddiq himself, for he now encompasses many souls.45 He becomes a “great vessel” for the souls of Israel, as many as he can suffer to attach themselves to him. Therefore, each man of Israel must be very strong in his faith, each according to his measure, and the proportion of the cleanliness of the vessel—that is, his body—to believe in God and the holy and pure Torah and in all the servants [emphasis mine] of God, may He be blessed, in truth and simplicity, with all his strength, and to attach himself to them to the point of the life-essence, one to one, chaverim together. And they will form unities together in simplicity. Then surely the glory of God will

43 Peri ha-Aretz, 33a–34b. Compare with Chesed le-Abraham, 43b–44a, “And this is the quality of the tzaddiqim . . . when they achieve the highest . . . justice is changed to mercy. . . .” 44 Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, 76. 45 “It is frequently emphasized by the early Hasidic authors that the tzaddiq does not only give. . . . He takes no less than he gives. In seeking to raise the people, he himself is raised, and the more he succeeds in his social task, the more he gain in spiritual stature.” Gershom Scholem, “Mysticism and Society,” Diogenes 58 (Summer 1967): 20.

4. The Teachings

61

be revealed to them in the light of the Torah. . . . And the tzaddiq whose worship is under time [that is, who descends] is called “servant.”46

Thus, this letter also proclaims the value of community. But this is clearly a community formed around the tzaddiq: men should join together and with the tzaddiq. It is important to note the use of the plural term “servants” in a context where it clearly alludes to tzaddiqim. It is possible, then, that Tzaddiqism is not an aspect of dibbuq chaverim. Rather, the reverse may be true, that is, that dibbuq chaverim is but an aspect of the community which is formed around the tzaddiq. It should be noted, however, that the term dibbuq chaverim itself does not appear here. It is thus possible that Weiss’s thesis is still correct. Although similar expressions do occur in this letter, as well as in others, the term itself does not appear in any of Kalisker’s other writings.47 In one of Kalisker’s later letters, he informs the chasidim that he writes only to direct their attention to one thing: “You should live always by your faith in the tzaddiqim. They will bring you into the covenant of faith. And when the faith in your heart is strengthened, redemption will draw near to your soul.”48 The last words in this passage are from the prayer Lekha Dodi (“Come my beloved”), which is recited on Friday evening. The author of the prayer calls on the Sabbath Queen to “Draw near to my soul to redeem it.” Kalisker then quotes and explains a famous comment on this verse, given by Ba‘al Shem Tov. The basis of the comment is the use of the singular, “my soul,” as opposed to the expected plural: As the BeSh”T . . . said, “. . . just as there is a general redemption of the community of Israel, so, also, is there a redemption of the individual, of each soul of Israel.” And even though a man know that there is crudeness and concreteness [material, as opposed to spiritual] in himself, nevertheless, he should direct his will and his desire continuously, with his whole heart, to find a remedy for his soul, to free it, by breaking his body and his material qualities.49

46 Peri ha-Aretz, 33a–34b. 47 For example, see a similar expression above. 48 Hillman, Igrot, letter 104. 49 Chesed le-Abraham, 44b.

62

A. Introduction

Later on, however, Kalisker cites the same verse, but he explains that such personal redemption is available only to the tzaddiq.50 R. Abraham saw himself, and was viewed by his chasidim, as a tzaddiq. He was somehow on a higher level, closer to Divinity, and able to intercede for his followers, all the more so because he lived in the Holy Land, from which the Divine Presence had never departed. Virtually every one of his letters ends with words similar to the following: “And I remain standing, with God’s help, before the Lord, in the Land of Life, the opening in the heavens, to call down blessing upon you from the Source of compassion.”51 This was his role in life. He sought to ease the spiritua1 burdens of his chasidim. But Kalisker’s elite station was justifiable only if it benefited those who could not rise to these heights. His ability to uplift them depended upon their relations with one another; this was Kalisker’s primary concern—the social relations of the Hasidic community. The Hasidic community in Palestine was divided amongst the towns of Safed, Peki’in and Tiberias. The center of activities, though, was in Tiberias. Their situation paralleled that of their brethren in Eastern Europe in many respects. The other Jews of Palestine, who were mainly Sepharim, were not sympathetic toward their ways of worship, and the Jews of Palestine were as subject to the whims of their rulers as the Jews of Eastern Europe. But the leaders of the chasidim in Palestine developed certain social doctrines which were virtually unknown in Eastern Europe. The idea of individual confession among friends52 and the notion of dibbuq chaverim are not to be found among the teachings of the tzaddiqim of Poland or Lithuania. What emerges from the writings of the Palestinian tzaddiqim is a picture of an intense spiritual community. Menachem Mendel states that real love of one’s fellow manifests itself when “a man speaks to another and tells him what is in his heart, even the counsel of his evil inclination, 50 “As it will be in the days of the Messiah . . . it can be for the tzaddiq who worships God in truth . . . that the words ‘draw near to my soul and redeem it’ will be fulfilled, that is, individual redemption. . . .” Chesed le-Abraham, 46b. 51 Hillman, Igrot, letter 99. 52 “Let also every person see to it that he has dibbuq chaverim. . . . Then let him hold converse with them every day for about half an hour, and emerge in self-reproof for the evil ways he sees in himself.” Menachem Mendel in a letter dated 1781, Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, 5a–b. See Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 97ff.

4. The Teachings

63

. . . for then the very speaking works salvation.”53 Kalisker also advises that a man should “choose one day each week to fast and confess . . . in tears. . . . On each of these days, one day a week, he should immerse himself in water twice. . . . And on each of these fast days he should isolate himself and confess his evi1 thoughts.”54 If these prescriptions actually reflect the reality of life in the Hasidic circles in Tiberias, and it is entirely possible that they do, why was this level of intensity not reached in Eastern Europe but in Palestine?55 The main difference between the situations of the chasidim in the Galilee and those of Poland and Lithuania was an economic one. Although most of the chasidim, that is, most of the Jews of Eastern Europe, were poor, nevertheless, the vast majority of them worked at something. The chasidim in Tiberias, on the other hand, depended almost entirely for their support on the annual contributions brought from Eastern Europe. Thus, while Hasidic leaders in Poland advised setting aside perhaps an hour a day to be alone, confess, and so forth, Kalisker could advise setting aside a whole day each week for hitbodedut, “being alone.”56 In addition, the collective economic dependence of the community would tend to strengthen the ties between them. To conclude, Kalisker’s teachings stress the centrality of faith, because of its universal attainability, and especially the social relations of the community of the faithful.

53 Peri ha-Aretz, 33a–34b; Chibbat ha-Aretz, 64b–65a. 54 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 10; Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept.” 55 The daily discipline prescribed by Abraham Kalisker as it appears in Liqqutei Amarim, 47b. 56 Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 97, says there is, “no room for doubting that this custom [of individual confession among friends] was actually in vogue among the followers of R. Menachem Mendel Vitbesker and R. Abraham Kalisker. . . . It is clear that both R. Menachem and R. Abraham refer to one and the same practice.” See also above. At least one Lithuanian tzaddiq, Aharon of Karlin, advocated a similar practice, but this was exceptional. See M. Buber, Tales of the Hasidim, Early Masters (New York: Schocken Books, 1961), 24ff.

5. The Last Years R. Abraham’s followers in Tiberias were, apparently, left leaderless and without a focus for the community at the time of his death, on 4 Shevat 1810.1 The letter they wrote soon after his passing does not mention that they have a rav to replace him. Kalisker did have a son, Alexander, but he appears as a signatory to only one letter, and that is dated 1786.2 Perhaps, he perished in the epidemic of the next year. R. Abraham also had a grandson, Yisra’el Eli‘ezer, whom he mentions in a number of letters up to 1801.3 Perhaps, his death is the source of an allusion in Shne’ur Zalman’s letter to Kalisker of 1806, “the hand of God has touched him, as is well known.”4 This would explain why R. Abraham left no successor.5 Kalisker had one last encounter with the mitnaggedim before his death. In 1808, the first perushim, students of the Ga’on, R.  Eliyahu of Vilna, arrived in Palestine, led by Menachem Mendel of Shklov. They went first to Tiberias and moved some months later to Safed. They were forced‫ ׳‬to move because of disputes with the chasidim.6

1 See the letter written after Kalisker’s death and signed by fifteen chasidim of Tiberias in Hillman, Igrot, 193–195. 2 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 11. 3 Ms. letter to Chayyim Krasner, Schwadron Collection, Jewish National and University Library; Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 34; Peri ha-Aretz, 33a–35a. The latter mentions that his grandson had recently married. 4 Letter of Shne’ur Zalman to Kalisker, 1806, in Hillman, Igrot, 173–177. 5 According to Frumkin and Rivlin, Toldot Chokhme Yerushalayim, part 3, 73, Kalisker married the widow of Shlomo Zalman ha-Kohen of Vilna, a prominent chasid of Tiberias, in his old age. 6 See Horodetzky, ‘Oleh Zion, 200.

5. The Last Years

65

The life of R. Abraham was fraught with conflicts and disputes. He was involved in the controversies which led to the first bans of excommunication against the chasidim. His animosity toward the opponents of Hasidism never left him, as just noted. In addition, his loyalty to the doctrines of his teachers and his position on the centrality of the commonly available religious experience of faith led him into conflict with his friend, Shne’ur Zalman of Liady. It is possible that he wished in that dispute to free himself from his financial dependence on the ChaBa”D leader as well. The dispute with HaBaD caused, a permanent schism among the chasidim. ChaBa”D represented a kind of compromise with the traditional Jewish values and the centrality of learning. Kalisker, who represented one of the most extreme Hasidic positions on the centrality of faith, could not tolerate the system framed by Shne’ur Zalman. Early Hasidism provided a new, satisfying religious membership for the Jews of Eastern Europe, at a time when they were experiencing a profound communal crisis. The Hasidism of the early tzaddiqim also reestablished the importance of simple faith and gave it priority over erudition, an available religious dimension was thus returned to the life of the ordinary Jew. R.  Abraham’s concern with emunah and with the communal availability of religious experience is discernible in most of his didactic writings. His emphasis of these themes makes him representative of early Hasidism in its most radical form, particularly when combined with his hostility toward the mitnaggedim. The most important elements of early Hasidism were embodied in the life and thoughts of Abraham Kalisker. His writings indicate profound concern for the social relations of the chasidim. He taught that the spiritual worth of each chasid was intrinsic and could not be measured by the external criteria of learning or wisdom, so that each one in the ‘edah gained a sense of individual importance. At a time of economic degradation, physical persecution, and general social instability, when the Jewish community with its established, values was disintegrating, Kalisker’s teachings—the new Hasidic community—provided a measure of solace. R.  Abraham must have been a fiery individual. He was a man of extremes, who refused the path of compromise. There could be no concessions to those mitnaggedim who, in their conceit, denied the value of simple piety. And when Shne’ur Zalman created a system which

66

A. Introduction

embodied a subtle compromise with traditional priorities, Kalisker adamantly opposed that effort at displacing faith from its centrality. He must have had the assured self-confidence of a man of faith. Certainly this is indicated by R. Nachman’s remark that, of all the tzaddiqim he had known, only R. Abraham had shlemut. Yet, there was no calm or peacefulness attendant to this wholeness. A man of strong emotions and deep convictions, R. Abraham Kalisker lived a life of struggle. Though there were almost certainly elements of personality conflict and simple pettiness in some of these disputes, it was a life lived on a grand scale and for a noble purpose.

R. Abraham of Kalisk along the Journey to the Promised Land I. Before he emigrated, the Kalisker made his wife agree to this condition if she was to join him. Even if at the Vitebsker’s home you see great splendor, like a silver candelabra shining on the table, while in our house there is very little to eat, you must promise not to get upset. So while in the Land of Israel, they were impoverished to the point where the Kalisker’s wife had to wrap herself in two bed sheets—that was how she dressed in public.1

II. R.  Abraham of Kalisk did not emigrate to the Land of Israel with R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, rather the Kalisker emigrated the following year. R. Abraham would say, “For that entire year, I was working with my wife until I finally I was sure of her, to the point where if she saw R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk’s golden bedpans while we had but ashen bread—not even a murmur should arise in her heart.”

1 R.  Mordekhai Chayyim of Slonim, Ma’mar Mordekhai, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Yisra’el Ze’ev, 2007), no. 5, 112.

70

B. Teaching Stories II

And R. Abraham of Kalisk would say, “Many times differences arose between myself and R. Menachem Mendel, but never has a grudge lasted overnight.”2

III. It is known that R. Abraham of Kalisk joined R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk in emigrating to the Land of Israel. As their ship approached its destination, with the Land of Israel now in the offing, the Kalisker was overwhelmed with fear, saying to himself, “How could someone as insignificant as me walk upon the holy earth of the Land of Israel?!?” The Kalisker simply could not concentrate because of this overwhelming fear and holy trembling, so he cried out, “I am not worthy to get off this boat and to enter the Land of Israel! So I will stay here in this boat until it returns on its way to the Diaspora!” Now, the Vitebsker understood that the Kalisker meant what he said and would not get off the boat. Regardless, the Vitebsker attempted to assuage his fears, soften the Kalisker’s heart, and change his mind. When he realized it was futile, the Vitebsker returned with a ruse and said to the Kalisker: “In meriting to see the Land of Israel from a distance we must celebrate with an obligatory thanksgiving meal!” So the Kalisker agreed with the Vitebsker, and they had their celebratory thanksgiving meal. In the midst of the meal, they poured the finest wine. The Kalisker drank until he was slightly intoxicated, and after the meal he went to rest a bit, falling asleep in his bed. While the Kalisker was sleeping, the boat reached the shore of the Land of Israel and the Vitebsker commanded his disciples to carry away the Kalisker [in his bed] from the boat without stirring him from his sleep. This is how the Kalisker was able to ascend and emigrate to the Land of Israel [so he would not get too carried away].3

2 S. Y. Agnon, Takrikh shel Sippurim (Jerusalem: Schocken, 1984), no. 2, 149. 3 R. Mordekhai Chayyim of Slonim, Ma’mar Mordekhai, vol. 2, no. 6, 112–3.

R. Abraham of Kalisk along the Journey to the Promised Land

71

IV. Even though they were both residing in Tiberias, R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and R. Abraham of Kalisk did not pray together. Once, however, after Sabbath morning prayers were completed, the Kalisker told his disciples, “Let us go over and visit R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, who is a truly devoted and reverent one, for all his acts are selfless.” So they all walked over to the pure table of the Vitebsker, bringing their hot dishes with them. They all ate together with great joy, until the local ruler came with his sword and disturbed them. The holy rabbi of Ruzhin commented how that very moment was edging on the cusp of redemption. This is why the Opposer appeared in the guise of the local Turkish ruler with his sword drawn, in order to throw them off balance. R.  Mordekhai Chayyim of Slonim concluded, “The residual impact of that moment still resonates today.”4

V. As a descendant of the priestly lineage, R. Abraham of Kalisk could not enter the cemetery precinct [lest he become ritually unfit for devotional service]. So when R.  Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk passed away, they accompanied the bier all the way to the border of the cemetery, so the Kalisker could still witness this moment. As they lowered R. Menachem Mendel’s casket into the earth, R. Abraham of Kalisk said to those around him at the border, “Lift me up so I can see my friend’s resting place.”5

4 Ibid., vol. 2, no. 7, 113. 5 Agnon, Takrikh shel Sippurim, no. 3, 149–150; compare with R. Mordekhai Chayyim of Slonim, Ma’mar Mordekhai, vol. 2, no. 24, 63.

R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Man Joseph G. Weiss, o.b.m. (University College, London)

The figure of R. Abraham Kalisker (d. 1810) emerges in Hasidic tradition as that of a revivalist enfant terrible whose wild behavior scandalized practically everybody and evoked revulsion and anger even among chasidim, to say nothing of their opponents, the mitnaggedim. According to R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, the Maggid of Mezrich rebuked his disciple R. Abraham in the strongest terms for his and his followers’ conduct.1 Hasidic tradition speaks of the TLa”Q chasidim, the group connected with R. Abraham, as a kind of religious anarchists.2 Very little is known of his teaching. He wrote no book, neither were his homilies noted down and collected by disciples. Some sayings of his appear at the end of Sefer Chesed le-Abraham,3 but these contain little that is new or of interest to the student of the doctrinal history of Hasidism. In many respects, for example, in his emphasis on emunah (faith), he is 1 See Simon Dubnow, Toldot ha-Chasidut (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1930), vol. 1, 112–113; G. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (London, 1955), 344–345. 2 M. Vilensky, Kiryath Sefer 1 (1926): 240; W. Rabinowitsch, Det Karliner Chassidismus (Tel Aviv, 1935), 33. 3 ‫ מו״ה אברתם‬. . . ‫ והשני‬. . . ‫ר׳ אברהם המלאך‬, . . ‫האחד‬, ‫ס׳ חסד לאברהם פי שנים בדרושים על התורה‬ .‫[ תר״א‬Chernovitz] ‫קאליסקער‬

76

C. Reader’s Guide

evidently under the influence of his elder friend to whom, in a letter, he refers as his master: R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk. The letters, however, written by R. Abraham from Palestine, whither he had emigrated together with R. Menachem Mendel in 1777,4 are full of interest in many respects. During the latter’s lifetime, R. Abraham would add only a few lines to R. Menachem’s long letters. When R. Menachem died in 1788, R. Abraham himself wrote long epistles containing much information about the life of the small Hasidic community and its relations with those around it. The epistles abound with unceasing complaints of the high and ever-rising cost of living. Fortunately, these letters comprise not only historical but also doctrinal material, which both in content and literary form surpasses what is otherwise extant of his teaching and homilies. Moreover, here we do not have second-hand notes made by some clumsy-handed disciple, but authentic letters of R. Abraham himself, although most probably these (like R. Menachem Mendel’s letters) were dictated to a scribe. It is intended in this article to analyze one of R. Abraham’s letters5— which is unfortunately undated—dealing mainly with devequt, the ideal way of life in Hasidic theory and practice.6 The letter is clearly divisible in two. The first part analyses the concept and practice of devequt proper, whilst the second part analyses a secondary state of devequt, namely, those phases in which, through lack of spiritual concentration, devequt proper is not attainable. Both parts of the letter hold surprises for the student of the theory of Hasidic devequt, as R. Abraham’s doctrines on the subject contain much that is novel. The epistle opens with an introduction on how to attain ayin (the mystical nihil). This doctrine R. Abraham had taken over from the Great Maggid R. Dov Ber of Mezrich, who had developed it in two clearly distinguishable, though often intermingled, forms.

See I. Halpern, Ha-Aliyyot ha-Rishonot shel ha-Hasidim le-Eres Yisrael (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1946). 5 It is published among the letters which form the Appendix of the book Peri ha-Aretz by R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk (Kopyst, 1814). Some copies of this edition do not contain the Appendix. 6 See G. Scholem, “Devekuth in early Hassidism,” Review of Religion 15 (1950): 115–139. 4

R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Man

77

One formulation of the ayin doctrine by the Maggid urges a mystical ‘anavah, that is, humility and self-abasement before God. It is practiced in contemplative exercises leading to the mystical annihilation of self. As the contemplative chasid annihilates himself, meaning, his individual consciousness, the vacuum thus created within his soul is immediately filled by a new content. His soul is invaded by God, that is, the Divine shekhinah. The withdrawal of the human ego from his individual consciousness conduces to the entry of the divine ego. In this process the shekhinah or God takes the place of the human ego that has been converted to ayin. According to the Maggid, this process is not an act of grace but is almost as natural as if a law of spiritual horror vacui were at work. The expulsion of the human ego is the necessary requirement for the soul’s attaining to its divine nature. The ways of self-annihilation, well-known to mystics of all ages, thus form an important element in the teaching of the Great Maggid. To him ‘anavah is not so much social humility but a mystic-contemplative self-abasement of man before his Maker. The technique of self-annihilation and of the passive retreat of the soul possesses unmistakable marks of ecstasy; the ecstatic atmosphere so clearly noticeable throughout the writings of the Maggid is partly due to them. But the Maggid speaks also of ‘anavah as humility in its accepted moralistic connotation, that is, as a quality of conduct between man and man. It is clear that the latter kind of ‘anavah contains no ecstatic elements. It implies the deliberate weighing of the merits of one’s fellow man against one’s own, with a view to recognizing one’s own deficiencies as greater and graver. It is characteristic of R. Abraham of Kalisk that when he speaks of attaining the state of ayin, he thinks of it not in its ecstatic meaning but as an attitude of social humility plain and simple. He makes use of all the terminology of his teacher, the Great Maggid, but evades all its ecstatic implications. By ayin he does not mean the mystical ayin and by ‘anavah he does not mean ecstatic self-abasement. In his own words: . . . the final aim of Torah and Hokhmah . . . is to attain the perfect ayin, wherefore a man should render his self non-existent; the very source of Wisdom is ayin. Ayin is its very root and from this root grow humility and lowliness, even as our Sages said: “The Torah is fulfilled only by him who makes himself like the desert,” free to poor and rich alike, and who

78

C. Reader’s Guide

regards himself as no greater than his fellow man, but feels “non-existent” before him. In this way they [man and his fellow man] are integrated [mitkalelei] one into the other, for ayin combines a thing and its opposite, and therefrom results the straight line that encompasses peace and blessing.

It is worth noting how formulae and expressions, which in the works of the Maggid are reserved for the realm of mystic and ecstatic ayin, are applied by the writer to the context of social humility. Hasagat ha-ayin, “the attainment of ayin,” a characteristic expression of the Maggid denoting ecstatic self-annihilation, is divested by R. Abraham of its mystical sense and is used of self-annihilation in terms of human relationships. R. Dov Ber’s frequent exhortation “to render oneself ayin” and his use of the scriptural verse ve-ha-Chokhmah mi-ayin timtza’ (Job 28:12) are now understood in a moralistic sense. The Maggid’s term batel bi-metzi’ut, “non-existent,” denoting the state of mystical ecstasy or “annihilation,” is employed by R.  Abraham in the sense of practicing social humility. Here the Maggid’s most cherished mystical concept is converted into a non-mystical virtue. This clearly points to a non-mystical, at least non-ecstatic tendency of R. Abraham. To the Maggid, ayin is one of the supreme metaphysical principles—that of coincidentia oppositorum. To R. Abraham it is, characteristically, the principle of reciprocal humility which conduces to peace in human relationships.7 The second section of the epistle deals with emunah (faith) as the alpha and omega of all religious values. The highest duty is the pursuit after simple things, “and Faith is the simplest thing, and equally obtainable by every person.” “Faith has no limits: with it man begins, with it he ends.” What R. Abraham says in this letter is in full accord with what 7 One understands how R. Abraham’s social concept of ayin is developed out of certain formulations of the metaphysical ayin in the teaching of the Maggid, e.g.: ‫ועינינו רואים‬ ‫ שאילו לא היה‬,‫ אפילו בין ב' דברים הפכיים כמו היסודות‬.‫שהחכמה מקשרת יחד ומתווכחת שלום‬ ‫ והכל מפני‬.‫ ואעפ"כ אנו רואים שהם מורכבים יחד‬,‫החכמה שביניהם לא היו יכולים אש ומים לדור יחד‬ ‫ כי הוא ראה שהאי"ן הוא‬,‫ ע"כ אינו מתגבר על חבירו‬,‫ וכל אחד רואה אי"ן שבחכמה‬,‫שהחכמה ביניהם‬ ‫                               ו‬...‫חיותו‬ (Or Torah [Korzecz, 1804], f. [140a].) For the Maggid ayin is identical with Chokhmah, whereas for R. Abraham ayin is the source of Chokhmah (as generally in Kabbalistic symbolism). The basic difference between the Maggid and R. Abraham is that the principle of peaceful coexistence of the opposite elements in the physical structure of the world was transformed into the principle of social coexistence.

R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Man

79

he says elsewhere. He insists most emphatically on the primacy of Faith. “Great is Faith . . . in that it supersedes human reasoning.”8 The writer proceeds to urge the shunning of jealousy as an objectionable form of human relationships, and points with great emphasis to the fact that Hillel the Elder declared the verse “Love thy neighbor as thyself ” to be the principal commandment of the Torah. The relationship between man and man is the pivot round which the thoughts of R. Abraham revolve; time and again he comes back to this theme which seems to hold him in a spell. Without apparent logical transition he then proceeds to give an exposition of the concept of devequt. Devequt denotes, for R. Abraham, man’s emotional relationship with God. One of his frequent expressions is “The sense of Love and Fear [of God], which flows down upon us, is the devequt between ourselves and Him, blessed be He.” It indicates that for him devequt is not an active but a passive state. This interesting point is further borne out by what follows. Simultaneous and commensurate with man’s self-discipline in devequt is the Divine help which complements it. Here R. Abraham passes on to the mainspring of his theory: The truth of the matter is that Divine Providence is in accordance with the devequt that exists between ourselves and Him, blessed be He, and commensurate with man’s own devequt is the exercise of Providence towards the person who never withdraws his thought and devequt from Him. Should anyone allow his thoughts to turn away from Him for a time, then during that period Providence will recede from that person.

This is a new idea in the history of Hasidic devequt. Devequt and hashgahah (Providence) are correlated here for the first time: God’s Providence towards an individual depends on that individual’s devequt. It is only a deduction from this principle that . . . if a person who, as a rule, is spiritually perfect happens to be affected by adverse circumstances, the reason must be sought in temporary shikhechah [forgetfulness, non-awareness, insensibility of the Divine] and 8 Liqqutei Amarim by R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk (Lemberg, 1911), part 2, 41b. Every student of Hasidism will see at a glance that only the second part of this book contains material emanating from R. Menachem; the first part is clearly a collection of homilies of the Great Maggid.

80

C. Reader’s Guide

cessation of devequt. . . . According to the measure of his forgetfulness and the length of time it persists will be the duration of the adverse conditions from which God may preserve us.

This theory of R. Abraham is new, indeed, revolutionary in the history of Hasidic devequt, which had not previously known this combination.9 Outside Hasidism it is, of course, as old as Maimonides’s Guide, to whose conception of Providence (Guide, part 3, ch. 51) R. Abraham’s doctrine bears a strong resemblance. In fact, the almost slavish dependence of R.  Abraham on Maimonides, both as regards the theory and its formulation, is apparent from a comparison of the texts concerned.10 However, after this rather slavish following of the Guide, the surprising originality of our author becomes apparent when he goes on to describe the spiritual state known in Hasidic literature as qatnut (lit. “littleness”). From R. Israel Ba‘al Shem onwards, devequt was understood in empiric, psychological terms as occurring in alternations of exaltation and lowness, high and low tide, climax and anticlimax of the spiritual life. The low tide was usually termed qatnut and the high tide gadlut (lit. “greatness”). Dissipation of the spirit and lack of spiritual concentration are the marks of the former, even as intensive concentration of the soul upon God is the mark of the latter, which is considered throughout Hasidic literature as the ideal state. Various theories developed in Hasidism concerning the role of this lowness of spirit in which devequt diminishes or ceases altogether as a consequence of the great spiritual effort preceding it. Now, R. Abraham also recognizes this state and also calls it qatnut, that is, a state of lower value. But the role he assigns to this state is one unthought of by his Hasidic predecessors. According to him, the phase of qatnut, occurring at a time when the emotional concentration upon God is not possible, offers the leisure-time necessary for emotional concentration of the soul upon the fellow man. Qatnut, in R.  Abraham’s view, is not simply an emotional desert but the choicest opportunity for “loving one’s neighbor,” and one should wholeheartedly avail oneself of 9 There is some resemblance to it in the theory expounded by another disciple of the Great Magid, R.  Hayyim Haika of Amdura. See his Chayyim va-Chesed (Warsaw, 1929), 38b, s.v. ha-Chodesh. 10 This has been noted by Zweifel in his apologetical but by no means valueless Shalom ‘al Yisra’el (Wilna, 1873), 3:17–18.

R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Man

81

this opportunity. In its ideal form qatnut has a positive function and constitutes “devequt with the neighbor.” Whenever the supreme form of devequt, that with God, is impossible to attain, it should be taken up in a modified form in which it can be realized, namely, in the human or social context. Here, again, the object of devequt is not God but man. Just because there is no man who is never subject to qatnut of his intellect or to a cessation of devequt with God, He clearly commanded us in His Torah “Love thy neighbour as thyself ”; for love brings about devequt— the clinging together of many as one man. Similarly, there is no person who does not at one time or another experience the influx of true devequt while his fellow man is idle [in devequt]. When they regard themselves as one, it [the devequt] can be gained by him through the devequt of his companion and through the latter’s cleaving to God. . . .

Here we have a community of contemplative individuals cleaving to God and also bound one to another. Gone is the isolation which the individual suffers whilst in a state of qatnut, when he is estranged from God. Through the new human bond a new sense of belonging is created. The most important aspect of devequt with one’s fellow man is that it is calculated to lead, albeit in a roundabout manner, back to the same security as devequt with God. This security is guaranteed because one is in devequt with one’s fellow man, who in turn is (or, at any rate, should be) in devequt with God himself. To be isolated means to be unprotected. Joining a human relationship offers the unprotected individual a new, this time human, shelter which is still under Divine Providence. From the context in R. Abraham’s dissertation it is not quite clear whether the ideal devequt in the phase of qatnut is just a matter between two individuals, one cleaving to the other and the other cleaving to God, or whether it is a matter of collective devequt in which a whole group participates, in that some members are cleaving to God and some to each other. . . . for all the members of the body receive Divine Providence through being connected with the brain and heart and these receive more Divine Providence and Protection than all the other parts of the body since they are closer to the life-essence [chiyyut] and to the Attachment and to the devequt. Nevertheless, by way of these all other parts of the body are also recipients of Providence.

82

C. Reader’s Guide

What exactly is the sociological situation implied in this theory? For a moment it seems as if R. Abraham, in the above passage, had in mind the relation of chasidim to the tzaddiq (the brain and heart of the allegory), the latter constituting devequt in his own person and all of them receiving a share of Providence through devequt with the tzaddiq. As R. Abraham writes, The saying of our teachers, “A mitzvah brings a mitzvah in its train, and a transgression brings a transgression in its train,” has been said not necessarily of one person, but of all who cleave to a perfect man. Is it not reasonable that anyone attached to him is the more readily drawn— by reason of being bound to him—to holy deeds and, similarly, to transgressions? It is, indeed, clearly taught in our teachings: “When it is well with the righteous man, it is well with his neighbor. . . .”

This is clearly enough an allusion to the tzaddiq, but soon this theory of devequt between man and perfect man proves to be a special case within the general theory of dibbuq chaverim (close association of friends of equal status). In a description that follows immediately on the foregoing passage in his letter he writes: “.  .  . and thus within the dibbuq chaverim who hearken intently to the voice of God, mitzvah and Torah are certainly extended and continued through devequt with men who are themselves cleaving [devuqim] to God.” The use here of the expression dibbuq chaverim and of the plural anashim (“men”) implies that R. Abraham does not refer to the devequt of chasidim with their tzaddiq, but rather to mutual devequt among men. And indeed, dibbuq chaverim is the keyword in R. Abraham’s system, whereas the tzaddiq plays a very unimportant role in it. One would be tempted to formulate it this way: tzaddiqism, to R.  Abraham, is but one form in the varieties of dibbuq chaverim. What R. Abraham has in mind in the above passage is something like a closely knit group of companions in a state of devequt with God. It is the first time in the history of Hasidism that clear expression is given to the idea of the value of the Hasidic community per se as distinct from its dependence on the tzaddiq. What comes to the fore here is the autonomous value of dibbuq chaverim as such.11 11 A later variation on the same idea is to be found in Ma’or va-Shemesh by R. Kalonymus Kalman of Cracow:

R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Man

83

This social significance of the contemplative community which is, in principle, independent of the tzaddiq, is apparent from a piece of practical advice given by R. Abraham in the course of the same letter. Discussing the needs of the individual, R.  Abraham refers to the aforementioned theory that harm comes to a person only when there is a weakening on his part in his devequt with God. From this it follows that all that is necessary in order to escape harm is the strengthening of the individual’s attachment to the contemplative community whose members are bound together by love in the fulfilment of the commandment “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” The integration of the individual in this emotional community will, of itself, effect the extension of Divine Providence also to him. Despite his temporary inability to participate directly in the members’ devequt with God, he yet does, through membership of the group, become part of them. It is a wonderful boon for the individual to have continuously the advantage of Divine Providence through his associates who are attached in devequt with God, and to be eligible for all good things and success in the uplift of body and soul; and it is possible that this is the meaning of the saying “A person to whom a misfortune has happened—heaven forbid— should inform others [rabim, ‘the many’] of his suffering, those others being persons who seek Heaven’s mercy on his behalf.” The Rabbis did not say the others “should seek” [yivaqshu] mercy for him but that they do— as a matter of course—seek [mevaqshim] mercy. Evidently, this dictum speaks of someone who conducts himself in accordance with Torah and its central principle, namely, the mitzvah “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Now if some misfortune befall him, at a time such as has been described, all he needs to do is to make his misfortune known to the many with whom he is in a relationship of devequt and who are themselves protected by Divine Providence from suffering and distress by the abundance of their devequt ‫ וכל אחד ואחד ישמע‬. . . ‫ ונראה לפרש הענין כך כי בהתאסף עדרי צאן קדושים אל הצדיק‬. . . ‫לחברו ויהיה קטן בעיני עצמו ויהי רוצה לשמוע איזהו דבר מחבירו איזהו בחינה חאיך לעבוד‬ ‫את השי״ת והיאך למצוא את השי״ת וכן כולם יהיו כך וממילא שהאסיפה היא על זה הכוונה אזי‬ ‫ממילא יותר מה שהעגל רוצה לינק הפרה רוצה להניק ממליא הקב״ה מקרב עצמו אליהם ונמצא‬ ‫ נמשך על‬. . . ‫ וחסדים טובים‬. . . ‫ ממקור הרחמים‬. . . ‫עמהם ונפתח להם ממילא כל הישועות‬ ‫ ומפרש הפסוק ושמעו בני יעקב פי שאתם בני יעקב שמעו עצמיכם זה לזה‬. . . ‫כנסת ישראל‬ (‫ (פרשת ויחי ד״ה הקבצו‬. . . .‫כדכתיב גבי מלאכין ומקבלין דין מן דין‬

Here the tzaddiq does not seem to have any function at all.

84

C. Reader’s Guide

with God. Thus those who are in trouble live under the divine protection which shields them [that is, through those in full devequt]. In order that the perfect ones might suffer neither pain nor grief, he, too, will have Divine Providence extended to him when they become aware of his grief. Thus [the communication of one’s distress to the contemplative colony] in itself constitutes a seeking of mercy. For this reason the Rabbis did not say “they should seek” but “they seek.” This is, too, what Scripture means when it says “that redeemed my soul with peace” (Psalms 55:19), that is to say, the attachment of love and peace to the many has redeemed my soul “from such as advanced upon me,” that is, from trouble-makers—Heaven forbid—whether they menace the body or the soul. “That saved my soul,” thanks to “the many who were with me” [ki be-rabim hayu ‘imadi] that is, through the many seeking divine mercy for me.

R.  Abraham sums up his advice, which almost amounts to an early attempt at group therapy, with these words: What it all comes to is this: that which brings about Divine Protection and Providence whereby one may be rescued from misfortunes, is the abundance of the sense of man’s love and fear of his Maker. Protection against what may happen in the future at a time when man is in a state of qatnut and experiences a cessation of devequt consists in a common bond, love and true peace found in dibbuq chaverim. When man is without either [devequt or dibbuq chaverim], he is one from whom the Divine Countenance is hidden, may God save us from being in such a state.

Indeed, it is advisable to be in a state of devequt with close friends. When one of the circle falls out of devequt with God into a state of qatnut, he then cleaves to his associates. The contemplative colony can assure all its members a fair amount of security, since the Divine Providence is guaranteed to the whole fellowship through those members who are, at the time concerned, fortunate enough to be in complete devequt with God. The portion of Providence is to be shared by all members. The letter ends with a salutation and an exhortation to foster good relations between men; cleaving to God is not even mentioned. The reader of R. Abraham’s letter gets the impression that although in R. Abraham’s view dibbuq chaverim is no more than a helpful remedy in moments of qatnut, he really is more interested in the formulation of the emotional

R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Man

85

values of dibbuq chaverim than in the formulation of the contemplative values of devequt proper with the Maker: And now, children, come hearken unto me. . . . Whoever is smitten by his conscience let him, for the sake of God and for his own sake, act as follows: Let him seek peace and fortify it . . . and if, Heaven forbid, his heart urges [lit. “hustles”] him to separate himself from the fellowship of men, let him hasten swiftly to his spiritually stronger brethren who truly and intently obey the voice of God, and say to them “My brethren-in-soul, save me and let me hear the word of God that He may heal my broken heart.” Moreover, let this man school himself to fill his heart with love for his fellows even if it should lead to the departure of the soul. Let him persevere in this until his soul and the soul of his brethren cleave together. And when they have all become as one, God will dwell in their midst, and they will receive from Him an abundance of salvation and consolation. . . .

Behind this florid style it is not difficult to discover the whole theory of R. Abraham concerning dibbuq chaverim as a fundamental value that comes into play whenever man is unable to maintain a state of devequt with God. Actually, however, devequt with God is not mentioned at all in the closing exhortation. This is surely significant. For although devequt with God is discussed in the course of R. Abraham’s letter, it yet seems as if for all practical purposes devequt with one’s fellow has replaced devequt with God. The difficulties of complete devequt with God are fully recognized, if not to say taken for granted. Instead of exhortations to return to devequt with God, it is hoped that the atomistic solitude of the individual, alienated from God in his state of qatnut, will be broken if and when he tries to find new human bonds into which he can integrate himself. The myth of the small contemplative group creates for him hope and the security of an intimate sheltering community. R. Abraham’s exhortations for peace among chaverim are not merely the traditional clichés of Hebrew idiom in praise of the pursuit of peace. They give expression to a new value: that of the contemplative community whose members are bound together by the emotional values of sympathy and brotherhood, in the manner of revivalist communities whose members are held together by the binding power of intense emotional loyalty. It should be noted that, according to the above, the emotional reintegration of the isolated and unprotected individual is not to be achieved

86

C. Reader’s Guide

by means of the traditional concept of the Community of Israel [kelal Isra’el], semi-transcendental as it is and certainly devoid of any concrete social meaning. Kelal Isra’el would be a self-inviting, almost natural contemplative refuge for the alienated individual.12 R.  Abraham, however, proposes an emotional integration within a small but concrete group [dibbuq chaverim] and not within the vague, sociologically abstract entity of kelal Isra’el. It is precisely the belonging to such a small but closely knit group which gives, in R. Abraham’s opinion, a distinctive sense of security of existence. From the abstract theories in the epistle we have, so far, reconstructed the picture of an emotional group in which the psychological forces inherent in all group activity come into play. This picture is fully confirmed by a piece of practical advice given by R. Menachem of Vitebsk in one of his epistles which, incidentally, also fills some gaps left by his other writings. The letter in question, which is undated, is addressed to the qehillah of Bieshika and is published in part 2 of Liqqutei Amarim (attributed to R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk), p. 5.13 After direction and advice on a study schedule (which in itself would deserve detailed analysis), the writer proceeds to lay down rules of conduct in dibbuq chaverim. We learn to our great surprise that one of the acts demanded is individual confession between friends. The exclusive tradition of collective confession in general terms, so characteristic of Judaism, is here breached. True enough, there had been previous attempts in that direction, as, for instance, by the kabbalists of Safed, who developed a form of confession by the individual to a small group, not unsimilar to what R. Menachem is advocating. It is unnecessary to point out that the obvious likeness notwithstanding, there is no direct historical connection between the experiment of the sixteenth-century Safed kabbalists and that of the Tiberias chasidim of the eighteenth century. Both are the expression of specific psychological needs which demanded satisfaction in the one instance as in the other. In the words of the epistle: 12 This advice for the emotional reintegration of the faithless individual within Kelal Isra’el has been given, for example, by a contemporary tzaddiq, R. Ahron Roth, of Jerusalem, in his Mevaqqesh Emunah (Jerusalem, 1942). 13 The letter is in a fragmentary state; the beginning, the end, and the signature are missing. It is written probably by R. Menachem Mendel, along with the bulk of the epistles duly signed by him. The only other possible author is R. Abraham.

R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Man

87

Let also every person see to it that he has close attachment with kindred persons [dibbuq chaverim] who are chosen with discrimination as being in sympathy with one’s own mental and spiritual nature, men who seek only truth and who also desire to rid themselves of lust, insincerity, and falsehood. Then let him hold converse with them every day for about half an hour, and engage in self-reproof for the evil ways he sees in himself. His companion should do likewise. When he has accustomed himself to doing this, it will be found that when a person will see in a friend something wrong or objectionable and reprove him, he will not feel selfconscious before the other and will confess to the truth. Thus falsehood will fall and truth will begin to shine.

If we were to go more closely into R.  Menachem’s wording and observe that he sometimes uses the plural and in other cases the singular, we should deduce that the social set-up envisaged is, apparently, the following: there is a group of intimate friends, “kindred persons chosen with discrimination,” who form the body of the emotional brotherhood. Perhaps the reciprocal confession is not carried out openly in a gathering of all members, but remains an individual confession between two companions. Such private conversation between two friends is also described in a letter written from Tiberias by R. Menachem Mendel.14 The writer quotes the authority of R. Jacob Emden to the effect that real love of one’s fellow [ahavat chaverim], more profound even than all moral exhortations, manifests itself when . . . a man speaks to another and tells him what is in his heart, even the counsel of his evil inclination [yetzer] within him, for then the very speaking works salvation [hineh ha-dibur be-‘atzmo pu’al yeshu‘ot]. Then the evil inclination is forced out, for the “two are better than the one,” the two chaverim are superior to the one [that is, the lonely]. That which the two will confirm with the counsel of God is that which will endure.

14 Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, 16a. ‫ מוה' אברהם ז״ל מקאליסקא‬...‫ והשני‬...‫ מק״ק וויטעפסק‬...‫ מנחם מענדיל‬...‫)דברים נחמדים מהרב‬ .(...‫ מוה' אלימלך‬...‫ ועוד הנהגות ישרות מן הרב‬...‫ מוה' חיים חייקל מק״ק המדורא‬...‫והשלישי‬ The anonymous collector of Iggeret ha-Qodesh has rightly found this provocative passage worthy of inclusion (Warsaw, 1879 6a). The text of the passage as given in the Iggeret ha-Qodesh differs only slightly from that in the Liqqutei Amarim.

88

C. Reader’s Guide

This fine perception of the therapeutic value of such uninhibited talking leaves no room for doubting that this custom was actually in vogue in the Hasidic circles in Tiberias among the followers of R. Menachem Mendel Vitebsker and R. Abraham Kalisker. Although there is no decisive evidence to show whether these intimate talks took place between two companions or (less likely) in the presence of more than two, it is clear that both R. Menachem and R. Abraham refer to one and the same practice. Most striking of all in this context is the fact that the important Hasidic notion of the tzaddiq as the charismatic leader is not mentioned at all in our texts. There is no doubt that the confession of which we read was not a confession before the tzaddiq, but rather an exchange of confessions between people of equal status. The custom of confession before the tzaddiq is to be found here and there in the Hasidic movement.15 But more surprising than the fact that it is found at all is the fact that it is not found in far greater measure and force in an atmosphere so heavily charged with emotion and in an area in which the Christian practice of confession prevailed throughout. True enough, the Bratzlav Hasidim were popularly dubbed vidduynikkes on account of their custom of confessing to the tzaddiq.16 This custom was undoubtedly more widespread, and one cannot infer from the fact that this name was applied to the Bratzlav Hasidim that confession before the tzaddiq was an essential and distinctive mark of this sect alone. R. Abigdor, the notorious opponent of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, mentioned in the official document of complaint against the chasidim which he sent to the Russian Government, that the disciples of the Maggid regularly instruct those who wish to join them to confess before them.17 Here, as with the Bratzlav usage, the con‫ כל המחשבות והרהורים רעים‬,‫ ואפילו לפני חבר נאמן‬,‫לספר בכל פעם לפני המורה לו דרך השם‬ ‫ הן‬,‫ הן בשעת תורה ותפילה‬,‫אשר הם נגד תורתינו הקדושה אשר היצר הרע מעלה אותן על מוחו ולבו‬ ‫ ונמצא על ידי סיפור הדברים‬,‫ ולא יעלים שום דבר מחמת הבושה‬,‫ והן באמצע היום‬,‫בשכבו על מטתו‬ ‫ חוץ עצה‬,‫ משבר את כח היצר הרע שלא יוכל להתגבר עליו כל כך בפעם אחרת‬,‫שמוציא מכח אל הפועל‬ ‫ (מספר י״ג בצעטיל קטן לר‬.‫ והוא סגולה נפלאה‬,‫הטובה אשר יוכל לקבל מחבירו שהוא דרך השם‬ .(‫אלימלך מליזינסק‬ 16 See Avaneha Barzel, ed. Samuel be Isaiah ha-Levi Horovitz (Jerusalem, 1935), 9. 17 Teitelbaum Ha-Rav mi-Liadi (Warsaw, 1910), vol. 1, 111. The practice seems to have started after the death of the Maggid. It is worth noting that Solomon Maimon, who gave us the most plastic description of the “court” of the Great Maggid, still stresses the fact that the initiated were not required to confess to the tzaddiq: 15

R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Man

89

fession is clearly part of the initiation rite. The practice recommended in the letters of R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham is confession not before the tzaddiq, but as between equals; neither is it part of an initiation ceremonial but a daily custom with the time to be spent thereon specifically recommended. The psychological significance of dibbuq chaverim in the Tiberias circle becomes apparent if we consider the specific function of this exchange of confession between “close friends”. The emotional pattern of the Tiberias circle is clearly different from that of, for example, the various religious groups within Italian-Jewish society of the same period. The nineteenth century Musar movement too apparently evaded the seductive possibilities of reciprocal confession that might easily have become its method. The practice of confession must have provided for the members of the Tiberias group that profound sense of belonging to a close circle (with its concomitant feelings of satisfaction and security) that constitutes the psychological power of a group over its members. There is, of course, an attraction in the secret sweetness of exchanged confessions that may well have been an important psychological factor in the development of the Hasidic concept of dibbuq chaverim. The emotional attachment to the group is greatly enhanced by the relief that is effected through such confessions, and its emotional tension gains new strength. Our texts make use of rather clumsy circumlocutions in defining the aims of these confessions (making possible the administration of reproach by one’s fellow man, etc.) Nevertheless, it is evident that to the participants themselves “the very speaking works salvation.” The deeper motive seems to be the feeling of gratitude and relief that results from the confession or, to be more exact, from the attitude that could be confidently expected of the one who listened to it. For what was hoped for in the Tiberias circle, no less than in the Oxford Group, was not so much a statement as a personal attitude of ego te absolvo. Jeder Mensch .  .  . hätte nichts mehr nötig, als sich an die hohen Obern zu wenden und eo ipso gehörte er schon als Mitglied zu dieser Gesellschaft. Er habe nicht einmal nötig (wie es sonst mit Medizinern der Fall ist), diesen hohen Obern von seinen moralischen Schwächen, seiner bisher geführten Lebensart und dergleichen etwas zu melden, indem diesen hohen Obern nichts unbekannt sei. (Lebensgeschichte, ed. Fromer [Munich, 1911], 198).

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk Ze’ev Gries (Ben Gurion University, Be’er Sheva)1

I R. Abraham of Kalisk was among the important figures in the Hasidic movement founded by R.  Yisra’el Ba‘al Shem Tov. But his fascinating image has not yet received a full scholarly description.2 We do not know 1

The basis of this chapter is a lecture prepared for the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, 1981. In 1972 I wrote, under the supervision of my teacher, Prof. Yisaiah Tishby, a seminar paper on the controversy between R. Abraham of Kalisk and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady. Some material from that study was reworked and included in this essay, which I dedicate to Prof. Tishby as he reaches his seventy-fifth year. 2 An MA thesis, which has, unfortunately, not reached my hands, was written in the United States. See Hundert, Toward a Biography of R.  Abraham Kalisker [Hundert’s MA thesis is included in the current volume—Ed.]. Mention should also be made of the work of the late J. Weiss, to which I shall refer subsequently. See Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” [in this current volume, 75-89–Ed.]. After this article was submitted for publication, my friend, Prof. Y. Liebes, gave me a book in which many pages are devoted to R. Abraham of Kalisk. See Yechiel Granatstein, The Students of the Baal Shem Tov in the Land of Israel (Jerusalem, 1982 [5742]), 234–283. The author made use of R.  Abraham’s letters and homilies, as well as relying on some Hasidic manuscripts and traditions. Nonetheless, both the section on his thought (236–264) and the biographical section (265–273) were written with an uncritical approach, and the main interest was to report praises for the righteous person. In addition, the author

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

91

when he was born. But we do know that he was one of the disciples of R. Dov Ber of Mezrich,3 and a student/companion, assistant, and successor of R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, with whom he emigrated to the land of Israel in the year 5537 [1777],4 where he died in 5570 [1810].5 included (290–292) two unknown letters from R. Abraham. With regard to them we should note that if there is any interest in them at all, it is with the first one (291), in which R. Abraham emphasizes the command we are charged with regarding “love your neighbor as yourself ” [Leviticus 19:18] even though the Holy Blessed One “created people whose opinions and character traits are not all the same.” Granatstein connects these words to the words of R. Abraham that we will cite later in our essay, after note 75 and in note 76. Of course, Granatstein does not know Weiss’s article and does not make use of his sensitive literary and substantive analysis in places that would have certainly benefited him (244–247). One should additionally cite another essay germane to our topic, but its author, who followed in the footsteps of Weiss, did not discern the specific mythic and kabbalistic root that is at the center of our essay. See J. Dekro, “Love of Neighbor in Later Jewish Mysticism,” Response 13, nos. 1–2 (Fall–Winter 1982): 74–83. 3 Hasidic legend tells that, before he came to the Maggid of Mezrich, he was a student of the Ga’on R. Elijah of Vilna. See M. M. Bodeq, Megillat Yuhasin ve-Seder ha-Dorot mi-Talmidei BeSh”T Z”L (Lviv, 1943 [5704]), first printed in 1839 [5600], unpaginated—in my counting, 17b. See also S. A. Horodetzky, “Le-Qorot ha-Chasidim,” 420; Dubnow, Toldot ha-Chasidut, 112. Among more recent publications, see Granatstein, The Students, 265–266. There are other examples of attempts to paint a learned biography of the fathers of Hasidism as well as the BeSh”T. See my essay, “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature from the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century until the 30s of the Nineteenth Century” [Heb.], Zion 46 (1980 [5741]): 232. See also the rabbinic approbation of R. Bezalel ben Meir Margaliot to Shivchei ha-BeSh”T (Berdichev, 1814 [5575]), which crowns the image of the BeSh”T with the traits of erudition and incisiveness belonging to recognized scholars—“Sinai v’oqer harim” (bHorayot 14a) and comparisons to “a seed underground” (bTa‘anit 4a, and see RaSh”I ad. loc.), though one should not forget that those who write rabbinic approbations always exaggerate the praises of the authors, minor or great, and, understandably, the first of praises regards their scholarship. This is the case, as well, regarding the Maggid R. Dov Ber of Mezrich, who was, according to Hasidic legend, among the students of the author of the Penei Yehoshu‘a. See A. Kahana, Sefer ha-Chasidut (Warsaw, 1921 [5682]), 147–151, and especially 148–149. Sh”I Ish Horovitz noticed that this biographical sketch is part of an attempt to acquire authority and a detail to prove the general rule that the chasidim of the BeSh”T did not deviate from halakhic norms. This is despite his own scathing attack on their general behavior. See his article, “Ha-Chasidut ve-ha-Haskalah,” He-Atid 2 (1922 [5683]): 51–52, 56–61, 68–69, 76. In this latter matter M. L. Lillienblum agrees with him, “‘Al ha-Rabbanut ve-ha-Chasidut,” He-Atid 3 (1922 [5683]): 107. 4 On his immigration to the land of Israel see Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration, 20–37. Halpern corrected there (21 and n. 7) Dubnow’s error regarding identifying the name of R. Abraham’s city. 5 See Kliers, Tabur ha-Aretz, 109a.

92

C. Reader’s Guide

The hagiographical literature of the chasidim did not treat him overly well. Indeed, it only mentions R. Abraham a few times.6 Likewise, the Mitnaggedic literature does not even mention him once.7 Anyone who wishes to sketch the outline of R. Abraham’s life, his character traits, and worldviews, must, of necessity, use only sources from the Hasidic camp, whether they be his own few writings—sermons in the book Chesed le-Avraham8—his letters from the land of Israel,9 or the letters of other chasidim of his generation. The lack of documentation about R. Abraham outside the Hasidic camp reduces the possibility of a balanced assessment of his status and role in the struggle between the chasidim and the mitnaggedim prior to his immigration to the land of Israel. We shall try to clarify whether R. Abraham really led others in a public, collective struggle against the leadership policy of Jewish communities or whether he was simply one among many who entered this conflict, and not necessarily their leader. We shall look into whether R. Abraham created a new typology of leadership for a Hasidic community,10 in which love of friends, personal commitment, and responsibility, understood not merely as social activities, but as bona fide mystical acts, which meld the tzaddiq with his community and arouse a corresponding unification among the supernal forces that will add to their effluence into the world. Or, perhaps, the essence of his teaching is nothing but the result of his teachers’ influence, earlier traditions, and the fact of his separation from 6 Menachem Mendel Gerlitz, Sifrei Avot ha-Chasidut be-Eretz ha-Qodesh (Jerusalem, 1943 [5704]), section 2, published a small batch, 18–23; See also Granatstein, The Students, 277–280. 7 If we do not include the emendation made by Dubnow, Toldot ha-Chasidut, 271, regarding the accusations of R. Avigdor of Pinsk who tells of three Hasidic leaders sent to the land of Israel, among them R.  Abraham Karliner. Dubnow corrected that name to read R. Abraham Kalisker, a correction that was rightly dismissed by Hilman, Igrot, 145n9. 8 The book was first published in Chernovitz, 1850 [5611], together with the sermons of R.  Abraham ha-Mal’akh, son of the Maggid of Mezrich. See also Y. Y. Kohen, “Ha-Defus ha-Ivri be-Chernovitz,” Areshet 3 (1960 [5721]): 299, no. 34. 9 The letters merited very many editions. Later I will mainly use the version in Liqqutei Amarim (Lviv, 1910 [5671]); Hilman, Igrot; Ya‘aqov Barnai, Igrot Chasidism me-Eretz Yisra’el (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzchaq Ben-Tzvi, 1979–1980 [5740]). I do not include here R. Abraham’s hanhagot [behavioral practices] because they are nothing other than a version of the hanhagot of the Maggid R. Dov Ber of Mezrich. See also my article “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature,” 208–210. 10 As emerges from the comments of Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept.”

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

93

the bulk of his community in the Diaspora, once he immigrated to the land of Israel, a detachment that required of him an increased emphasis on the intimate connection between him and them, so as to try to prevent the ascent of a new leader outside Israel, R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, with whom R. Abraham disagreed.11 11 In this framework we will not be able to discuss all the details of the well-known dispute between R. Abraham of Kalisk and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady. We will refer to it only to the extent that it will contribute to clarifying our subject. The dispute still needs a thorough historical account both regarding the events and regarding the ideologies that preceded it or that was enveloped within it. Meanwhile, see A. I. Braver, “On the Dispute Between RaSha”Z of Liady and R.  Abraham ha-Kohen of Kalisk (Letters from R.  Abraham),” Kiryat Sefer 1 (1923–4 [5684–5]): 142–159, 226–238. Braver collected letters relating to the dispute, but left much more to be done as far as analyzing them and providing additional testimonies. Nevertheless, he tried to create the impression with the reader that his approach was not that of the “secular” researchers, Horodetzky and Kahana, who also delved into the material aspects of the dispute. See ibid., 143. See also Rachel Elior, “The Minsk Dispute” [Heb.], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 1 (1980–1 [5741–5742]), where she deals with the controversy on 195–99; ibid., 197. Before that, ibid., 189–190, an ideological root is raised, one that reaches back to the first of the chasidim. The distinction is made between leaders who emphasize the institution of a charismatic spiritual tzaddiq, not taking responsibility for “their community’s material sphere,” as opposed to an institution of ttzaddiq that deals with materiality and that serves as the intermediary between the community and God. It appears to me that it is impossible to cloak with any of these two conceptual mantles the Maggid Dov Ber of Mezrich, R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, and R. Abraham of Kalisk. Anyone who reads the testimonies of chasidim and their opponents, the writings of R.  Shne’ur Zalman of Liady and the letters of R.  Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and R.  Abraham of Kalisk from the land of Israel will realize that the backbone of any Hasidic community is the tzaddiq who tirelessly takes care of the material matters of his chasidim. And if there is any criticism leveled against certain “practical” tzaddiqim, it is only leveled, for the most part, against their attempts to turn into folk magicians. The Laznai Rules of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady and the letters relating to them (see Hilman, Igrot, 58–69) seem, at first, to contradict our premise, for it emerges from them that R. Shne’ur Zalman shirked any responsibility concerning the material matters of his chasidim. But one must be exact about this issue, since R.  Shne’ur Zalman did, indeed, reject continuous visits of the masses to him, with their interminable demand for advice, but he did not thereby shirk his responsibility for his community and the need to aid his chasidim. Rather he expressed in this way his clear opposition to a common phenomenon in the courts of the wonder-working tzaddiqim, a phenomenon whose entire point was to remove from the shoulders of the chasid all responsibility for any of his actions and behaviors, throwing them, instead, upon the shoulders of the omnipotent rebbe or tzaddiq. (See, especially, ibid., 61–62.) One of the results of the activities of such practical tzaddiqim was the neglect of life of the chasidim in the places in which they dwelled for the

94

C. Reader’s Guide

No one wishing to draw the contours of a biography of a figure such as R.  Abraham of Kalisk can ignore that he took part in a movement where the mystic dimension, with all its mythic roots, was powerfully vital. Gershom Scholem accepted Martin Buber’s description stating that Hasidism represents “Kabbalah turned into ethos.” But he added that, in order to create Hasidism, one other ingredient was necessary: its leaders, mystics who discovered the mystery of devequt, turned to the people, and founded a religious community in which they expounded this most personal of all their experiences and did not seek to keep it to themselves.12 Therefore, it is impossible to attempt to describe one of the very first of the chasidim if we ignore the mystical motives for his activity and writing. We maintain that R. Abraham’s activity and writing are part of the process of transformation leading from myth to ethos, and that R. Abraham had a part in this process among his mystical predecessors and his teachers in BeSh”Tian Hasidism, without being an originator of any concept or practice. We are concerned with the erotic mythos of Plato (from the Symposium), according to which the human was first created as one

sake of long stays at the rebbe’s court, whom they also, as a result, deflected from his regular life path. (See also the rules adopted from 1794 [5555], ibid., §§8–10, 65; new rules issued in §23, 55–56, 66–67.) It seems clear to me that the ChaBa”D movement would not have attracted so many followers had its founding father, R. Shne’ur Zalman, distanced himself from his position and responsibility regarding his chasidim, secluding himself in the four cubits of halakhah (bBerakhot 8a) and the study of esoteric wisdom. Surely he assisted his chasidim to the best of his ability, whether in material or spiritual matters. But he purposely marked boundary lines that would prevent his turning into a continual messiah and savior, for he knew that such a status would only ruin the souls of his chasidim of his own soul, as well, and that intimate relations of closeness, worry, responsibility, and partnership of destiny do not mean the nullification of independence and the absolute dependency of the community upon the tzaddiq and vice versa. For more on the Minsk dispute, see below, note 42. We shall seek to substantiate our premise: that from the beginnings of Hasidism a communal structure was formed whose defining feature, internally and externally, is the relation between the tzaddiq and the community and between the individuals among themselves, with all the material responsibility and involvement this implies, with these also having a deep mystical foundation, as we shall see further. Also compare my article, “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature,” 228–233. 12 See Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1967), 342.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

95

unified body, male and female, and was then sawed into two by the gods. Since then, the parts aspire to couple and rejoin as at the beginning.13 This myth reached the Sages and, according to E. E. Urbach, was deprived by them of its mythic sting.14 But it should be noted that already with the Sages this myth evolved from a description of the creation of humanity and also became the description of the nature of the divine creative word. The creative impulse was revealed as two-faced, with one side granting a life-giving elixir to Israel and the other side giving a death potion to idolaters.15 This version raises an interesting parallel to the 13 See Kitvei Aplaton, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1974 [5735]), 112–116. One should note here the great influence of this myth in Western culture, but consideration of this would go beyond the limits of our discussion. Nonetheless, we should remark that this myth reaches the Middle Ages in its form and as the concept of love in the Neo-Platonic tradition, especially in the Enneads of Plotinus. See Plotinus, Enneads, trans. G. Spiegel, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1978), “Third Ennead,” 377–388. Especially important is Marcilio Ficino’s commentary on the Symposium. He was one of the important figures in the Platonic Academy in Florence in the fifteenth century, whose demand for love and brotherly fellowship it attempted to realize among the members of the academy. Much has been written about this. See P. O. Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (London: Stanford University Press, 1965), 47–48. Ficino influenced Hebrew writers’ concept of love, the first among them being Johanan Allemano, the Hebrew tutor of Pico della Mirandola, Ficino’s academy associate. The acme of the Hebrew expression of the concept of love is Leone Ebreo (Judah Abravanel), Dialoghi d’Amore (Rome, 1535). See the Hebrew edition with intorduction and notes: M. Dorman, ed., Sichot al Ahavah (Jerusalem, 5743), 240–245. See also M. D. Cassutto, Ha-Yehudim be-Firenzi bi-Tekufat ha-Renesans (Jerusalem, 5727), 240–245; and B. Roth, Ha-Yehudim be-Tarbut ha-Renesans be-Italia (Jerusalem, 5722), 118, 125– 129. See also the controversial study by Bishop Nygren concerning the connection between Platonic eros and Christian agape, as it underwent development in the writing of various thinkers: A. Nygren, Agape and Eros (London: Westminster Press, 1953), and the criticism of J. N. Bell, Love Theory in Later Hanbalite Islam (New York: State University of New York Press, 1979), 7–8. He used Nygren’s analytic approach to examine the love theory in Islamic sources that also absorbed the Platonic theory of eros. For more about the influence of the Platonic myth see further, notes 27, 32. 14 See E. E. Urbach, HaZa”L: Pirkei Emunot ve-De‘ot (Jerusalem, 1975 [5736]), 201–205. Contrast the words of M. Stein, Ha-Midrash ha-Hellenisti (Warsaw, 1928 [5689]), 5–6. This is a special edition of his article published in Sneh [Warsaw] 1, no. 2 (Adar 1928 [5689]): 141–154. See also its republication in the collected papers of Stein in Hebrew, Bein Tarbut Yisra’el le-Tarbut Yavan ve-Roma (Givatayim/Ramat Gan, 1970), 93–105, and specifically 97. See also his book Filon ha-Alexandroni (Warsaw, 1936 [5697]), 220–221. 15 See Tanchuma Shmot 25; Exodus Rabbah 5:9; Leviticus Rabbah 1:11, and the textual variants and sources brought by M. Margaliot, ed., Vayikrah Rabbah (Jerusalem, 1971 [5732]), 26. See the discussion of this midrash in Ira Chernus, Redemption

96

C. Reader’s Guide

Sages’ words on Genesis 2:7 as formulated by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, “And God created Adam with two inclinations.”16 This means that we have before us a structural parallel between the manner of the creation of the human and his nature and the nature of the creative ground itself— the logos. Therefore, it is not surprising that the kabbalists who used this myth to describe the life of the Divinity also transferred it to the life of humanity, for the possibility of a structural parallel is already found in the words of the Sages.17 This myth lived on in the consciousness of R. Sa‘adiah Ga’on’s contemporaries, and on that basis some of them characterized sexual desire (cheshek—eros) as a mitzvah.18 The first kabbalists employed the myth to describe the relations of the forces of evil—Samael, the masculine force, and Lilith, the female force,19 though, in Zohar, the myth is used to describe the complementary relations between a masculine sefirah— Tif ’eret, and the feminine—Malkhut, their union creating harmony in the theosophic order and abundance for the world.20 In Zohar we also find this myth describing an erotic relationship between the Great Letters Above, creating a supernal model of Torah, with the Small Letters making up the model’s lower reflection.21 This is none other than a new interpretive use of the proposition already found in the words of the Sages, noted above,22 who maintain that the Creator’s speech, composed of letters, was and Chaos: A Study of the Rabbinic Aggada (PhD diss., Temple University, 1976), 267–268, and more fully in his article, “On the History of Pericope in the Midrash Tanhuma,” JSJ 11 (1980): 53–65. My thanks to J. Levinson for referring me to these studies and supplying them to me. On the divine creative speech see Genesis Rabbah 12:10; Psalms Rabbah, psalm 62. Cf. Pirqei Avot 5:1 and bShabbat 119b; Piyyutei Yannai (Berlin 1937 [5698]), 12; and S. Lieberman’s article in Sinai 4 (5699): 236. 16 See also bBerakhot 61a; Genesis Rabbah 14:4. 17 See Mishnat ha-Zohar, ed. Y. Tishby and P. Lakhover, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1948 [5709]), 135,144–161; and vol. 2 (Jerusalem 1960 [5721]), 7. 18 See my article “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature,” 220n.96. Part of my description later will be based on the sources and studies I cited there. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. See also Y. Liebes, “Ha-Mashiach shel ha-Zohar: Li-Dmuto Ha-Meshichit shel R. Shim‘on bar Yochai,” in Ha-Ra‘ayon ha-Meshichi Be-Yisra’el, Yom Iyyun Le-Regel Mel’ot Shemonim Shanah le-Gershom Shalom, ed. Shmuel Romm (Jerusalem, 1981– 1982 [5742]), 141, 201, 203, and M. Idel, “Ha-Sefirot she-me-al la-Sefirot,” Tarbiz 51 (1981 [5742]): 268, and n. 150 there. 21 See my article “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature,” 220n.96. 22 See above, note 14.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

97

bisexual. The Zohar describes the assembly of R. Shim‘on bar Yochai’s circle, in which the tzaddiq—R. Shimon bar Yochai, the male—unites with the Shekhinah—the female—and simultaneously arouses her unification with her husband, the Blessed Holy One—Tif ’eret—by means of the circumcised organ that is the sefirah of Yesod, also called Tzaddiq. This unification for the sake of returning the divine harmony to its proper state is not possible unless the memebrs of the tzaddiq’s circle show comradely love to one another,23 thus creating a social model for a small and closed group of unifiers that realizes the erotic myth. It is no wonder that R.  Shim‘on bar Yochai’s model deeply influenced the Lurianic mystics in Safed, who demanded an intimate spiritual bond in their circle, with mutual responsibility of one person to the other, strengthened by the doctrine of soul roots developed by their master, R. Itzchaq Luria (AR”I) of Safed.24 This feeling of fellowship, with its attendant mythology, was at the basis of new customs that appeared in Safed: accepting upon oneself the commandment of “love your neighbor as yourself ” prior to prayer,25 and organizing an association of mystics in the manner resembling the way RaSh”Bi made his comrades swear in the Zohar.26 This Safedian realization of the Zoharic fellowship influenced the kabbalists of R. Sar Shalom Sharabi’s group in Jerusalem in the first half of the eighteenth 23 See Liebes, “Ha-Mashiach shel ha-Zohar,” 157–159. 24 On the custom of the community in the Land of Israel to insist on brotherly love, such that any quarrel between the simple folk (‘am ha-aretz) and the scholars had to be settled immediately, so that the opponents would reconcile and their mutual love return, see the witness of R.  Shlemil of Dresnitz in “Iggeret mi-Tzfat,” ed. S. Assaf, Qovets ‘al Yad, new series 3 (13) (1939 [5700]): 124. Later we will also discuss the formation of a mystical circle among the associates of RaM”aQ, similar to RaSh”Bi’s circle in the Zohar. But, since it was the AR”I’s model that was influential for future generations, we will not deal with it here. On brotherly love in the AR”I’s circle see his Sha‘ar ha-Gilgulim (Jerusalem, 1911 [5672]), “Introduction,” 39, 66a and ff. Regarding the roots of the soul in Lurianic Kabbalah see Gershom Scholem, Pirkei Yesod be-Havanat ha-Kabbalah u-Semalehah (Jerusalem, 1975 [5736]), 337– 349; and especially 342–343, 344–348. See also Scholem’s remarks in his essay “The Naturalization of the Messianic Element in Early Hasidism,” JJS 20 (1969): 37. On this entire matter see, at length, Liebes, “Ha-Mashiach shel ha-Zohar,” 160–163. 25 See M. Hallamish, “Hanhagah min ha-Kabbalah be-Sifrut ha-Halakhah,” Niv ha-Midrashiyah 13 (1977 [5738]): 161–165, and an expanded version under the title “Gilulav shel Minchag Kabbali,” Kiryat Sefer 53 (1977 [5738]): 534–556. See also what I noted regarding his statements in “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature,” 220n.96. 26 See Liebes, “Ha-Mashiach shel ha-Zohar,” 136–137n.199 and 158n.251.

98

C. Reader’s Guide

century, who sought to establish their lives and their relationships with each other according to this model.27 It should be noted that even now there is a circle of kabbalists in Me’ah She‘arim that calls itself Chavurat Ahavat Shalom, the same name as the circle of R. Sar Shalom Sharabi. Here is the place to add an example showing how vibrant the model of a loving mystical fellowship remained in the consciousness of a person who was once a part in such circle, even if only in his youth. R. Chayyim Yosef David Azulai (ChiD”A) left the Ahavat Shalom fellowship of R. Sar Shalom Sharabi when he was young. In his enormous corpus of work, R. Azulai dedicated little space to esoteric teachings. It would seem that we can find justification for this among the stories that praise him, saying that R. Sar Shalom Sharabi rejected him and did not draw him into studies of kabbalistic secrets. ChiD”A complained to him, saying, “What is my crime and what is my transgression [my emphasis—Z. G.] so that you do not turn your face to me and teach me?” His teacher said to him, “I know that you did not enter this world to study ‘the path of truth’ [kabbalah], for you have sufficient comprehension to study in other modes first. But in the end, you will apprehend studying the path of truth.”28 However, a reader of the praises of the AR”I (Shivchei AR”I) will see that this is a duplication of a story told of R.  Itzchaq Luria, who rejected R.  Moshe Alshekh and refused to teach him kabbalistic mysteries, with R. Alshekh saying to him, “My master, what is my crime and what is my transgression [my emphasis—Z. G.] so that the master does not want to draw me close?” And the AR”I answered him, “that his soul had only come to this 27 See ibid., 136–137n.199, 158n.251, and 131, the end of n. 183. See also M. Benayahu, R.  Chayyim Yosef David Azulai (Jerusalem, 5719), 14–18. We find an interesting witness to an attempt to ritually revive the Platonic myth from Jews who were students of the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary and had become lovers of philosophy. They regularly gathered every Saturday night in a bar and called themselves “Symposium,” from the name of the Platonic dialogue. Since there were six participants, they even tried to copy the names of the participants in the original symposium. See M. Kalvari, Bein Zer‘a le-Katzir (Tel Aviv, 1946 [5707]), 64–65. This is precisely the way that the AR”I seated his disciples in Meron, in the order of the seating of RaSh”Bi’s circle at the meeting of the Idra. See M. Benayahu, Toldot ha-AR”I (Jerusalem, 1966 [5727]), 179–180. Liebes, “Ha-Mashiach shel ha-Zohar,” 107, 109, took note of the great influence of the Zohar upon the Safedian kabbalists, including the matter of the seating order of the AR”I’s students in Meron. 28 See M. Benayahu, “Shivchei ha-Rav ChiD”A,” in his Sefer ha-ChiD”A (Jerusalem, 1958 [5719]), 183.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

99

world in order to compose those books that he wrote in the straightforward manner.”29 Nevertheless, in his book Devash le-Fi (Livorno, 1801 [5561]), published many years after he had left Ahavat Shalom, ChiD”A emphasizes under the entry “Love” that: The holy Zohar cautioned very much about love of friends, as did our R. AR”I, zt”l, and cautioned us that, before prayer, one should accept the commandment to “love your friend as yourself.” Those who calculate the words have said that [the numerical meaning of the letters that make up the word] ahavah—“love”—equals [the numerical meaning of letters of the word] echad—“one” [and equals 13] in gematria [numerology]. And with the love he feels for his friend and the second love that his friend feels for him, each equaling echad, the two times ahavah equal 26 in gematria the number value of the Unique Name [of God—YHVH]. This is what is meant when it says, “love your friend as yourself, I am YHVH.” For by means of love [taken] two times of love [there appears] “I am YHVH,” making the numerical value of the Unique Name.30

29 See Benayahu, Toldot ha-AR”I, §15, 169–170n.27. 30 ChiD”A, Devash le-Fi (Jerusalem, 1962 [5722]), 7d. See M. Buber, Be-Fardes ha-Chasidut (Jerusalem-Tel Aviv, 1962 [5723]), 76, for a similar interpretation of “love your friend as yourself.” Researchers provide much additional material about the union of friends and the ties between them, both in medieval Hebrew literature and Greek and Latin literature. See Y. Davidson, ‘Otzar ha-Meshalim ve-ha-Pitgamim (Jerusalem, 1978 [5739]), 22, no. 241; G. Alkoshi, ‘Otzar Pitgamim ve-Nivim Latini’im (Jerusalem, 1981 [5742]), 38, no. 114, 46, no. 142, and 466, no. 1623a. Additional material from Hebrew and world literature is found in A. Blankstein, Mishlei Yisra’el ve-Umot ha-‘Olam, ed. S. Ashkenazi (Jerusalem, 1963 [5724]), §§180 and 182, 127–133. To their lists may be added the extensive material found in Rei’shit Chokhmah (Jerusalem, 1971 [5732]), Sha‘ar ha-Ahavah, ch. 1, 53a–53b, and Sha‘ar ha-‘Anavah, ch. 5, 226d–227c. See also the words of R.  Natan of Gaza in sections of Sefer ha-Beriah, quoted in C. Wirszubski, “Al ha-Ahavah ha-Ruchanit,” Qovetz Hotza’at Shoken le-Divrei Sifrut (Tel Aviv, 5701), 183. My thanks to Prof. Y. Liebes for referring me to this work. It is important to mention that, without any connection to ChID”A, we find in Shirot ve-Tishbachot shel Shabta’im (Tel Aviv, 1947 [5708]), §34, 55–56, that two lovers who unite to make the Tetragrammaton are Shabbatai Sevi and Abraham Miguel Cardozo. See also ibid., §17, 40, and §25, 48. Again, my thanks to Prof. Liebes for bringing this to my attention. Here it is appropriate to remind that ChID”A was one of those who pushed for the spreading of the custom to accept the mitzvah of “love your friend as yourself ” before prayer. See Halamish, “Hanhagah min ha-Kabbalah,” 540.

100

C. Reader’s Guide

This is to say that a person like R. Azulai, who left Ahavat Shalom in his youth, vividly preserved its memory in his maturity and set down the essence of that group’s obligations in a book he composed years later. But it is important to emphasize that neither Ahavat Shalom nor the mystical circle of AR”I ever intended to direct their life guidance b to the broad public and did not wish to draw a large group to their fellowship.31 We have emphasized this last point because in the Hasidic movement, the myth was extended to broad aspects of everyday life, to loving fellowship between the tzaddiq32 and his community and among all its members, 31 See also Scholem, Major Trends [1967], 328–329. 32 Regarding the transfer of the model of the tzaddiq from RaSh”BI of the Zohar to the tzaddiqim of Hasidism, including its attendant mystical and erotic dimension, see Liebes, “Ha-Mashiach shel ha-Zohar,” 113–116. One may add to his remarks the “Writer’s Preface” to Shivchei ha-BeSh”T, which ties the BeSh”T to RaSh”BI and to AR”I. See Shivchei ha-BeSh”T, ed. B. Mintz (Jerusalem, 5729). On the possible influence of the figure of Jesus on RaSh”BI’s image, see Liebes, “Ha-Mashiach shel ha-Zohar,” 141n.209. For more on Christian influences on the Zohar see ibid., nn. 182, 224, 270, 406, Appendix, n. 15. See also the expanded relation in Y. Liebes, “Hashpa‘ot Notzri’ot al Sefer ha-Zohar,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 2 (5743): 43–74.

Prof. M. Idel brought to my attention the article by A. Green, for which I am grateful. See Arthur Green, “The Zaddiq as Axis Mundi in Later Judaism,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 45, no. 3 (1977): 327–347. Regarding the identification of RaSh”BI with Moses, mentioned by Green, see, additionally, Liebes, “Ha-Mashiach shel ha-Zohar,” 90n.12, 105-107, 11nn.106–107. It is also possible that the name qibbutz used for Bratzlav Hasidic circles is nothing other than a transfer of the common name used in praising the AR”I’s circles, which relate that when this collective of friends gathered in Meron, as a sort of renewed gathering of RaSh”Bi’s circle, there would join with them “RaSh”Bi, peace be unto him, and his fellows and the souls of the righteous and other tannaim and ministering angels, who came to hear true Torah from my mouth . . . and, had you human eyes, you would have seen with your own eyes the great gathering [qibbutz] sitting there, for the words that I say are as they were given from Sinai.” The entire emphasized part is from one of the mss. of the Praises. See Benayahu, Toldot ha-AR”I, 180, and the other version there. Perhaps it is not accidental that chasidim adopted the name qibbutz as the term for an intimate gathering for communion around the grave of the rebbe, the tzaddiq, Nachman of Bratzlav. If we keep on adding link to link it is appropriate to note that the Prince of History tied the thread of this mythos, by way of the kabbalists and the chasidim, to the leaders of the chalutzim who emigrated to the land of Israel at the start of the twentieth century. They carried with them the traditions of their hasidic parental homes so as to found intimate fellowship circles to which they applied the term qibbutz, and wherein they exhibited amazing powers of devotion and love to one another, both in their afflictions and their joys. Evidence

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

101

while these intended to draw a broad public to join their community, so that their group would not remain a closed elite. In everyday life of the Hasidic community, this demand led to the formation of a personal ethos, realized in the tearing down of barriers between friends, with the intimacy of relationships revealed through spending long periods of time together, during which personal problems would surface and personal concern expressed, whereby the chasidim learned and practiced sacred service. All these wove a reality of being that cemented the life of the Hasidic community, spinning magical threads around those drawn to it, caught in its web.33 is offered by the anthology Qehilyatenu. See also Gershom Scholem, Mi-Berlin li-Yerushalayim (Tel Aviv, 5742), 211–212. See also, for expressions of aspirations to forge a friends’ collective that would live cooperatively, the letters from the Shomer, Mendel Portugali, published by A. Opaz, “Mikhtavim me-Eretz Yisra’el ha-Shomer Mendel Portugali le-Tovah Ishto,” Hadarim 3 (Winter 1982–3): 40. It should be noted that Buber, Be-Fardes ha-Chasidut, 74–78, 107–12, devoted much space to the love of the tzaddiq and his flock, love of God and love of fellow creatures, all out of a correct notion of the centrality of love in the life of the Hasidic community, but without knowing its mythic, kabbalistic source. Buber tried to describe the form and nature of fellowship and community as a possible model for the renewed establishment of the interpersonal bond, one that would help contemporary society flourish and improve. In his opinion, a true community will be formed in a place where the group of people will have a shared relationship to a center, a relationship that some of his interpreters understood to refer to the founding of a group around a charismatic leader, like the Hasidic tzaddiq in his community. For an extensive treatment of this whole issue see the article by P. Mendes-Flohr, “Chavruta ve-Chiddushah Du Si‘ach ke-‘Iqaron Metasotziologi,” in Kan ve-‘Akhshav: ‘Iyyunim be-Haguto ha-Chevratit ve-ha-Datit shel M. Buber, ed. Sh. Talmon et al. (Jerusalem, 5743), 52–62, and especially 55–56. 33 For an extensive treatment of the intensity of the social bond see my article, “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature,” 228–233. Here it is fitting to note that there is an important stage in the appearance of the erotic mythos, a stage that preceded in time the Jerusalem mystics of the eighteenth century and the chasidim in the diaspora of around that time—the Sabbatean literature. I did not deal with it because I did not find a direct literary link between it and the Jerusalem kabbalists and the chasidim in the diaspora. Nonetheless, Sefer ha-Beri’ah of R. Natan of Gaza includes fascinating material, formulated in the sterling style of an exceptionally unique author (see the passages quoted in Wirszubski, “Al ha-Ahavah ha-Ruchanit”). This book still awaits its redeemer from manuscript to print for the benefit of scholars. It is also important to note the theology of the Shakers sect, founded in the eighteenth century as a break away from the Quakers. At its head stood a prophetess named Ann-Lee. According to their theology, divinity was pictured as bisexual, thus justifying the appearance of Jesus and, afterwards, Ann-Lee. This theology was interpreted by them to demand absolute equality between men and women, which they tried to realize in the

102

C. Reader’s Guide

R. Abraham of Kalisk personally experienced this new development whereby the myth went public, turning into an ethos within the Hasidic circles. Thus, it is possible that in his youth, he was caught attacking and disparaging Torah sages out of a desire for a different kind of leadership, along the lines of Hasidic leaders, for all of Israel. His inner Hasidic demand for love and brotherhood between one person and another, and between the leader and his congregation, did not subdue his feelings towards those who did not accept that demand. His commitment to exercising love between comrades was also expressed through his writings. We will proceed to clarify the matter of his public behavior as propagation of Hasidic values, and their reflection in his written doctrine.

II. Anyone wishing to assess R. Abraham’s place in the struggle between the chasidim and mitnaggedim prior to his emigration to the land of Israel will encounter various difficulties. First among them is the fact that R.  Abraham is never mentioned in the writings of the mitnaggedim.34 Secondly, any testimony from within the Hasidic camp itself is suspect of tendentiousness, especially when it comes from the mouth of his communes they founded and in which they preached sexual abstinence, although they did not prohibit marriage and they insisted on preserving brotherly love. See, at length, Sh. Wurm, Qomunot ve-Orchot Chayyehem (Tel Aviv, 1967 [5728]), 52–54; The description is taken from A. White, S. Taylor, Shakerism: Its Meaning and Message (Columbus, OH: AMS Press, 1904), 253–258. It should be added to Wurm’s remarks that there is a long history of demanding equality between the sexes in Christian tradition, even without holding to a concept of divine bisexuality. It begins already in the words of Paul, who demanded absolute equality between a man and a woman, as between members of different nations and religions. See R. Scroggs, “Paul and the Eschatological Woman,” J.A.A.R. 40 (1972): 283–303, and his article in J.A.A.R. 42 (1974): 532–537. See also the comments of E. H. Pagels, “Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion,” J.A.A.R. 42 (1974): 538–549. My thanks to Dr Ilana Silver for referring these articles to me. Paul used the concepts of brotherhood, unity, and equality of humankind whose source was Alexander the Great. See W. W. Tarn, “Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind,” Proceedings of the British Academy 19 (1933): 123–166. This idea had private and public or political meaning in the history of the West. See, at length, G. H. Sabian, Toldot Torat ha-Medinah (Tel Aviv, 1971), part 1, 156–172. 34 See above, note 7.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

103

antagonist in times of struggle, R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, with whom R.  Abraham wrestled after the death of the recognized Hasidic leader, R.  Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, out of his wish to continue to lead the Hasidic community in the Diaspora while dwelling in the land of Israel. As is known, at the end of 1805 [5565], in the midst of the conflict between them, R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, the leader of ChaBa”D, sent a letter to R. Abraham,35 in which he described in detail R. Abraham’s unusual and wild behavior, his insulting of Torah sages and his somersaulting in public, with its peak occurring in 1771 [5532], before the death of the Maggid R. Dov Ber of Mezrich. This behavior wrought great harm to the chasidim, who entered into urgent discussions with their master, the Maggid of Mezrich, while R.  Abraham hesitated to appear before their master and required others to defend him. According to R. Shne’ur Zalman, even R. Abraham was ashamed of his licentious behavior when it was mentioned to him publicly during the dispute in Shklov.36 35 In Hilman, Igrot, letter 103, 187, the letter is dated, with uncertainty, to 5566. But in Iggeret ha-Qodesh (New York, 5740), section 51, 120, it is dated Elul 1805 [5565]. See also ibid., 446, in the notes to section 51, a list of the publications of the letter in shortened and complete versions. One should add to it the publication of a part of this letter by Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 40. 36 Hilman, Igrot, letter 103, 175. When bringing this essay to print, I met Prof. G. Hundert, who told me that in his MA thesis, published in the current volume, he noted that ChaBa”D tradition tells, in the book Beit Rabi, of R.  Shne’ur Zalman’s (RaSha”Z’s) strange behavior while praying. Indeed, in Ch. Heilman, Beit Rabi (Berdichev, 1901 [5662]), ch. 1, 1b, we find that RaSha”Z engaged in a devout prayer of a very strange kind before he went to the court of the Maggid of Mezrich and became a chasid. Then he was guided in his devotions according to the book Shnei Luchot ha-Berit and Siddur Sha‘ar ha-Shamayim by the Shelah. Matters developed to such an extent that his father-in-law wanted his daughter to divorce him. Later in Heilman, Beit Rabi [1901], ch. 6, 16a, and n.20 there, it is told that “his prayer, also, was very shocking [this is already after he became a chasid] for when he would pray individually he would do so very quietly, while in public he would create turmoil . . . and would draw out [his prayers] very much, until two in the afternoon. And on Rosh ha-Shannah and Yom Kippur in the evening he would lengthen [his prayers] more and more. While praying he would strike the wall with his hands [my emphasis] until blood would flow from his hands, but he would not feel it at all. Therefore they put many cloths on the wall. . . .” This last description surely means to depict RaSha”Z’s persona in accord with the description of the prayer of the BeSh”T, in general, and particularly during the Days of Awe. See Shivchei ha-BeSh”T [5729], 61–63. Of course, one must recall such a model of an excited and noisy devotee is completely contrary to what is told of R.  Akiva who, when he prayed by himself, became so excited that his motions moved him from one opening of the room to the

104

C. Reader’s Guide

This letter supplied scholars with a figure who could serve as the address for the charges leveled in the writings of the mitnaggedim, who themselves did not specify which of the chasidim were meant.37 But the scholars did not consider the strange fact that the person who caused such trouble for the Hasidic collective did not merit ever being mentioned by their opponents. This fact already casts doubt upon the position within the struggle attributed to R.  Abraham by R.  Shne’ur Zalman, and it certainly prevents any definite scholarly conclusion that R. Abraham, at the head of a group of chasidim, wished to form a force outside of society, while R. Shne’ur Zalman and his faction wished to make peace with society and try to conquer it.38 Another doubt regarding R. Abraham’s central place in this struggle, within the Hasidic camp and in the eyes of the mitnaggedim, is raised by examining the structure of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady’s letter and comparing it to other letters written during the conflict, specifically with regard to members of ChaBa”D. It seems that anyone who would wish to besmirch his antagonist is bound to be caught up in literary conventions accepted by people of his place and time. Just as we have found that R. Shne’ur Zalman accuses R. Abraham of insulting Torah scholars and wildness (which means failure to perform a commandment), so do we find that, as the controversy developed between R.  Abraham and R.  Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, R. Asher of Stolin, who was recruited into the camp of R.  Abraham, wrote a letter to the Maggid of Kosnitz against the ChaBa”D chasidim, in which he accuses them of arrogance, insulting Torah sages, and throwing off the yoke of the commandments. Here are his words compared to the words of R. Shne’ur Zalman:

Concerning R. Abraham of Kalisk, by R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady other, while when he prayed with the congregation, he prayed in hiding so as not to burden the community. See Tosefta Berakhot, ed. S. Lieberman (New York, 5715), section 3, 12, and Lieberman’s notes in Tosefta ki-Feshuta, ibid., 29. Also compare this to the depiction of the devout prayer of R. Abraham ha-Mal’akh, son of the Maggid of Mezrich, in Heilman, Beit Rabi [1901], ch. 25, 62b and ibid., n. 1. 37 See Horodetzky, “Le-Qorot ha-Chasidim,” 45, 62. 38 See Vilensky, “Note,” 240. For more on this matter, see Schneerson, “Abot ha-Chasidut,” copied in Hilman, Igrot, 160–161, and in Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 2, 361–362. See also below, note 42 and the accompanying text.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

And I continue to be amazed how anyone alive could deny the well known fact that I traveled together with him to the holy community of Rovno to our holy rabbi, may his rest be in Eden, in the summer of 1772 [5532], and he was afraid to travel into the actual city, because of our rabbi, may his rest be in Eden, and he remained at the edge of the city. He asked of me to appear before the late rabbi, our master R. Menachem Mendel, who had been in this holy community for some time already, and to request of him that he seek to intercede on his behalf with our holy rabbi, may his rest be in Eden, to grant him permission to come before him. And immediately the late rabbi went to our holy rabbi, may he rest in Eden, and had some influence with him, and I went to the edge of the city to call him. We went together with him into the room of our great rabbi, may he rest in Eden, and my own eyes saw and my own ears heard how he spoke harshly to him about how bad his behavior was for our adherents in the state of Russia (for the late rabbi was firmly situated in the holy community of Minsk), for all day long their conversations were wild and full of frivolity, as well as making fun of those who study [Torah], demeaning them with all manner of insults, with throwing off the yoke [of Heaven] and great irresponsibility. And also, by always going with head down and feet up [kulien zikh] in the markets and streets, desecrating the Name of Heaven in the eyes of the gentiles, along with other kinds of games and teasing in the streets of Kalisk.39 Concerning the People of ChaBa”D, by R. Asher of Stolin The point of the matter is that were I to detail before his honor some of the particular things that I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, and I can testify and swear to this in legally binding testimony, my lord would be astounded at the hearing. And, it seems to me, that he would certainly seek out in public that they distance themselves from such a path. I do not have to mention their names, but from the overall account we must learn that we must hold fast to the faith in our holy Torah, and to belief in our holy sages, the wise of each generation, and to be fortified in reverence for God, which faith is His treasure. But they are thousands upon thousands and almost an entire state who speak nothing but secrets of the Torah, and mysteries and wisdom is put out 39 Hilman, Igrot, letter 103, 175.

105

106

C. Reader’s Guide

in public and in the byways, etc., while they have cast truth and faith to the ground and they speak askance about the high saintly ones, the saints through whose lives they derive their own lives so that they may merit the arrival of the Redeemer. But all for them is as unimportant as garlic skin, and they denigrate them and have become heretics regarding the practical mitzvoth and the basics of the Torah. And anyone who cries out and says that this is the right path before them is considered one of the worthy, and they proceed in good conscience and do not know the inner truth of the matter, how far it has gone.40

We have testimonies, both from the side of R. Abraham of Kalisk and from R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, that admit to at least some of the accusations against them. But when concerned with an even-handed weighing of the testimonies, which have about them more than a trace of personal bias, it is forbidden to accept the rule that anyone who admits to some of the charge is completely guilty. We begin with the last and will return to the first. With regard to R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, we have in hand a letter he wrote to his chasidim after the chasidim of R. Barukh of Miedzyborz accused them of Sabbateanism. In this letter, he admitted that he does not concern himself with a portion of his chasidim, thereby giving some basis upon which, their opponent could rely. But are we scholars, because of this, also obliged to try to inject the Sabbatean issue into this research area and declare that there were Sabbateans in ChaBa”D? Moreover, the Sabbatean issue is part of the structure of accusations accepted by that generation’s members. An example can be found in the informer writings such as those written by R. Avigdor of Pinsk, who certainly used the accusation of Sabbatean heresy against the chasidim in order to feed the suspicions of the Russian Tsar Pavel, who did not tolerate religious disorder.41 This does not mean that any relationship between the Hasidic movement and Sabbateanism must be dismissed, or, at least, studied afresh. However, at least with regard to R. Abraham of Kalisk and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady and their chasidim, one must separate the substantive wheat from the chaff so common during a polemical conflict. R. Shne’ur Zalman says: 40 Ibid., letter 107, 185–186. 41 See M. Nadav, “R. Avigdor ben Chayyim u-Milchamto ba-Chasidut be-Pinsk u-veLita,” Zion 36 (1970 [5731]): 212–217, and especially 215.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

107

I have heard that they exaggerate with great lies beyond reason when they slander us with the name of the sect of Sabbetai Tzevi, may his name be erased, and the like . . . . and the matter, as is known to us, is that, generally, our adherents, who listen to Hasidic matters in our cities have among them many who do not practice what they hear properly and as required as is possible for them, in accord with their pure minds and hearts. This is simply because of laziness, as [they do not want] not to bother their minds with probing prayer, from the heart’s depths, evening and morning, day by day, but only [pray] skipping a day or two. . . .42

We move on to R. Abraham. From his letters, we know that the mitnaggedim sent testimony from the Diaspora to the land of Israel. He was not specific about who or what was involved, but he noted that the sages of Tiberias assigned the collection of evidence to him. Evidently, they were not so afraid of him. Even so, R. Abraham asserts that he burned the evidence.43 He added more about this in a letter he sent in 1800 [5561] to R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady (a letter known by the name “The Case of Ele‘ezar”), in which R. Abraham explicitly wrote that R. Ele‘ezar of Disne, a chasid of R. Shne’ur Zalman, who had arrived in the Land of Israel and subsequently returned abroad, told the sage R.  Yitzhak Abulafia about “the whole matter of the TLa”Q that occurred in our state before we left from there, when some people came to sin because of me, God forbid. . . .”44

42 See the letter from 1803 [5564], first published by A. Kupfer, “Te‘udot Chadashot bi-Devar ha-Machloqet bein RaSha”Z mi-Liady u-vein R.  Abraham mi-Kalisk ve-R. Barukh mi-Mezbizh,” Tarbiz 47 (1977 [5738]): 234. 43 In his letter to the chasidim of Samila (Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 99, reads “Samilian”). See the correction in Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration, 58n,9, who dates the letter to 1777 [5538]. For more on the burning of polemical writings see Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 72, and vol. 2, 82. The letter was recently published by Barnai, Igrot, 66–69. See also the review of his edition by Y. Alfasi, Sinai 88 (1980 [5741]): 285–287. 44 Tolq (spelled tet-alef-lamed-quf) in Yiddish means “making sense, having a point.” The term refers to an incident in the year 1770 (tav-quf-lamed, or, in changed order— tav-lamed-quf = tla”q), which brought censure upon R.  Abraham for teaching his disciples to act in an unruly fashion in public. The homonymous relation between the word and the date served to create a statement der TLa”Q is ohn a tolq (“the incident of 1770 is without sense, not to the point”) [Translator’s note]. See Hilman, Igrot, letter 94, 156, and editor’s note 4. The letter was published recently by Barnai, Igrot, 252–259. See also Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration, no. 66, 76.

108

C. Reader’s Guide

R. Abraham merely gives a hint here—and the hint is explained in a later ChaBa”D tradition. There is no external corroboration to establish what part R. Abraham took in the matter of the TLa”Q—which involved, in 1769 [5530], the humiliation of Torah sages and inappropriate behavior, according to the ChaBa”D AdMo”R Yosef Yitzchak Shneerson.45 To add further to the difficulty, we should mention that R. Ele‘ezar of Disne, who besmirched R. Abraham of Kalisk’s reputation, was not accused by R. Abraham alone of being a provocateur. Even in the ChaBa”D camp itself, he got into a quarrel with the Middle AdMo”R, who writes about him bitterly: My beloved friend! What has brought you to direct yourself against me all these years? What have I done to you? In the close to twenty years since you came from our Holy Land and devoted your heart to the words of the living God, have I ever withheld from you, God’s love and truth, to the degree I was capable? I served with all my strength. I also suffered, 45 See Yosef Yitzchaq Shneerson’s article in Ha-Tamim 2 (1935 [5696]), and see above, note 37. Since the discovery of the well-known Kherson Archives, R. Yosef Yitzchaq is suspected of rewriting the history of Hasidism. See Gershom Sholem’s article in Zion 6 (5701): 93, and n. 38 there. Just as this is true regarding the archive, so is it true in this matter, as well as regarding the purported disputation between chasidim and mitnaggedim in Minsk, which has no historical support. See Elior, “The Minsk Dispute,” 183–184. The author claimed that, in addition to a tradition reported in the name of R. Yosef Yitzchaq, “examination of official documents [emphasis mine] reveals hints about additional events about which we have no detailed knowledge.” She then lists the events, including the Minsk dispute. However, if one examines the hint about this dispute given in the alleged official document, one follows it to discover that its support is from Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 23. Moreover, this support requires its own support, for Vilensky depends on the oral tradition of R. Yosef Yitzchaq! Compare also Elior’s statements, “The Minsk Dispute,” 182–183, which attempt to distinguish between the matter of the genizah and family traditions that may have passed among the chasidim from generation to generation, with R.  Yosef Yitzchaq merely being one of those passing along these traditions, and thus to advocate the recognition of their authenticity. But in our opinion, the question remains open: Is a tradition transmitted in the name of historical personages sufficient to remove any doubts about accepting the testimony, when it lacks any further historical support that would corroborate it? This, in a case where the language of the “document” and the historiography in it have a sharp odor of anachronism, for the ChaBa”D organization during the end of the eighteenth century is described in accord with its appearance during the ninteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, while there is no other supportive indication from the eighteenth century that would confirm this description.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

109

at first, humiliations and afflictions from your craziness, but love of the truth overcame everything, and I was also, with my father, the AdMo”R, a supportive advocate all those days. I planted a young shoot in your soul and it flourished and bore fruit in spiritual service all these years, so that [your] temporal life became eternal life. How can the living deny the living?46

If one compares these words of the Middle AdMo”R with the above words of his father, R.  Shne’ur Zalman, to R.  Abraham, one will see a similar writing style wherein both father and son act as supportive advocates for types such as R.  Ele‘ezar of Disne and R.  Abraham of Kalisk, who, however, know only how to embitter their benefactors’ lives. Once we have learned from the Middle AdMo”R of the character of his chasid, R.  Eleazar of Disna, and from R.  Shne’ur Zalman, of the character of R. Abraham, and also encountered a similar literary form, how can we determine what R. Abraham’s real part was in the public denigration of the opponents of the new Hasidism? It is possible that both R. Abraham of Kalisk and R. Ele‘ezar of Disne were similar personalities so that, when they met and antagonized each other, sparks of conflict began to fly, as often happens when impulsive people of similar character types meet up. It is like two identical electric poles that send sparks flying and repel each other when they are brought close together. But even if that were the case, this does not show what R. Abraham’s place and standing was in in the struggle between chasidim and mitnaggedim. And the problem of the use of accepted literary forms during times of controversy is not to be dismissed. We have no doubt that R.  Abraham of Kalisk took part in some apparently very strange actions. This is not only because he does not explicitly deny his part in the TLa”Q matter. We have the testimony of a chasid of R. Abraham, R. Leib Henelish, who writes to his son, Shmuel: “Now, my beloved son, I know for sure that some people who consider themselves wise fell into the nets of their inclination on account of seeing the revelation of true sages and their behavior with respect to eating,

46 See Hilman, Igrot, letter 94, 157–161. Compare to Iggeret ha-Qodesh, section 17, 260 and 494.

110

C. Reader’s Guide

drinking, laughter and moving about. However, they did not comprehend the goodness of their hearts and minds in doing this.”47 This testimony was written years before the dispute broke out between R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady and R. Abraham of Kalisk. We may possibly learn from it that R. Abraham’s strange customs were adopted in order to show the broad public that something significant had occurred in the Jewish community, as a new movement appeared, in which the boundaries between the leader and the congregation were removed, and the love and joy of the union of the tzaddiq with his congregation and with the Divine Presence were no longer to be kept behind closed doors. That is to say, the erotic myth was translated into a kind of exhibitionism that was unbearable to some living in his place and time. R. Leib Henelish casts aspersions precisely where he is guilty. In his view, if anyone sees public behavior that seems to be wild and nonconformist, he has his own inclinations to blame for making him judge what he sees in such a way. One could suppose, according to R. Leib Henelish, that noisy expressions of loving fellowship while eating and drinking, laughing and wandering about, or even the passion of the unique tzaddiq, were to be taken as an act of the tzaddiq’s communion with the divine powers, or between himself and his congregation, and only exceptional individuals could fathom this behavior by looking through the outer shell and refusing to be misled by it. But, again, one must be precise and say that, since it is not explicitly written that R. Abraham is the subject discussed, we cannot determine with certainty that this letter alludes to the Hasidic actions that began in the Diaspora and continued in the Land of Israel. This is all the more true since in the Diaspora, these actions were directed against those who rejected the new Hasidism, while in Israel their primary focus was internal, and only a reflection was cast outwards. In sum, anyone trying to weigh all the evidence we have about R. Abraham’s behavior would perhaps deduce that this man was impulsive and passionate, but would not know with confidence what his part was, great or small, in the polemic between the chasidim and mitnaggedim. Since we have his writings in our possession, and they include many statements regarding loving fellowship, we may conclude from 47 Liqqutei Amarim, letter 30, 35b. The letter is not dated, but it was printed among letters from the years 1777–1788 [5538–5549]. See also Halpern, The Hasidic Immigration, no. 44, 70. The letter was published by Barnai, Igrot, 187–190.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

111

their examination that, even if we do not know the precise part taken by R. Abraham among chasidim who rebelled in public, he certainly tried to turn his energies and actions both toward the public, in general, and toward his own group, specifically, in order to actively demonstrate that the love of a tzaddiq for his community and the love of each of its members must serve as an example for all of Israel. In its kabbalistic interpretation, he was among those who contributed to the realization of the erotic myth within the new Hasidic ethos.

III. One reading R. Abraham of Kalisk’s writings, whether in his letters from the land of Israel or his sermons that were published in Chesed le-Abraham,48 will find not a trace of exhortation to rebellion, but, rather, a call for inner conquest based on matters of reverence and piety.49 Perhaps, like those who tend to go to extremes, in his life he moved from one extreme to the other, and his rebellious actions during his early life in the Diaspora differed from his late peaceful behavior in the Land of Israel, where he seemed to be in control of his inclinations.50 Or perhaps we should moderate our words and say that R. Abraham was no different than many people, whose reflection of ego has one form in the testimony of others and another in their testimony about themselves. This is all the more likely given that his letters, directed to an entire community, and his sermons, which addressed the public, must have undergone his internal censorship, taking into consideration the expectations of his audience, as well as his own sensitivity to the manner in which his memory would be preserved for the future. Be as it may, it seems that even one who detects inconsistency and capriciousness in R.  Abraham’s letters to R.  Shne’ur Zalman of Liady 48 See above, notes 8–9. 49 See, for example, Chesed le-Abraham, in Gerlitz, Sifrei Avot ha-Chasidut be-Eretz ha-Qodesh [1943], parshat Lekh Lekha, 3c–d, a recommendation that a person make himself dumb in the world so that he will only say words appropriate for serving God; and parshat Mishpatim, 5a, a recommendation to break one’s character traits to dust. 50 See my article “‘Arikhat Tzava‘at ha-RIVa”Sh,” Kiryat Sefer 52 (1976 [5737]): 200–201.

112

C. Reader’s Guide

during the time of their conflict51 will agree that an antagonist’s testimony is not usable to delineate R. Abraham’s personality. This is because, from the start, R.  Abraham’s intention was to defend himself before R. Shne’ur Zalman, while still dependent upon him. After the death of R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk in 1788 [5548], R. Abraham remained the leader of the community in the Land of Israel. On the one hand, he fought to extend his leadership over most of the community in the Diaspora, while he was not in its midst and could not influence it. But on the other hand, his survival still depended on Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, one of the leaders of the community in the Diaspora, who managed the collection of funds required to sustain R. Abraham’s community in the Land of Israel. It is perhaps not accidental that the late J. Weiss noticed R. Abraham’s demand for intensive interpersonal involvement in the Hasidic community,52 whereby the goal of devequt was transferred from the sefirotic realm to the intimate relationships between friends. But Weiss did not see how widespread this demand is in R. Abraham’s words, with its sources in the words of his master, the Maggid, R. Dov Ber of Mezrich. Moreover, it has not been noticed that in his writings R.  Abraham promotes the Hasidic affirmation that the erotic myth has already been realized in his day in the relations between the tzaddiq and his community as well as among the members of the community themselves. And, moreover, it seems that R. Abraham, along with his masters, also preserves the traditional mystical demand for devequt to be achieved through detachment from the material, physical reality, whether of objects, of people, or of the values of this world.53 At first glance, the contradiction is not to Weiss’s words, but within the letters themselves: fraternal devequt between 51 See above, note 11. 52 See above, note 2. Weiss did not note that Dinur already hinted at this. See Ben Zion Dinur, Be-Mifneh ha-Dorot (Jerusalem, 5732), 220. 53 Perhaps some may claim that a comparison of R. Abraham’s writings with testimonies of his days abroad shows that he shifted from his youthful adherence to a doctrine of practical Tzaddiqism, teaching of tzaddiq for others, and to a more moderate doctrine in his maturity, a doctrine of tzaddiq for himself and for others, in accordance with the distinction of Yosef Dan and Yisaiah Tishby, “Hasidut,” in Entziklopedia ‘Ivrit, vol. 17 (Tel Aviv, 1968 [5729]), 780–781. Since we have nothing written that would testify to this, and, as explained above, testimonies about his part in the struggle against the opponents of Hasidism do not give a clear picture of his place in the struggle, it is necessary to be cautious about this assumption. See above, note 11,

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

113

members of one circle, which entails the removal of barriers between people, seems irreconcilable with a demand for personal devequt, which leads the mystic away from the collective and from all mundane matters. It would appear that the solution to this contradiction may not depend solely on the scholarly distinctions regarding the possibility of a tzaddiq with the capacity for personal contemplation and devequt, who, at the same time, would maintain a court in which his practical devotion [tzaddiqut] would take place.54 We must return to the mythic roots of the Kabbalah, upheld by the eighteenth-century chasidim. Then we will see that the great innovation of R. Abraham’s teachers and of R. Abraham himself was in the transfer of the erotic myth, in its kabbalistic interpretation, from the small, enclosed circles of the Lurianic kabbalists, who attempted to fulfill it in their lives together, to the broader spaces of the new Hasidic community, which was transforming from a clique to a community of spiritual devotees. However, at the same time, the new chasidim and their leaders did not abandon the ancient mystical ideal of the communion between the individual and his Maker, rejecting the materiality of this world. This ideal did not contradict the new trend but, rather, lived and continued by its side in constant tension. Elsewhere we have noted that, given the situation in Eastern Europe in the eighteenth century, it is difficult to imagine that any social or religious movement could encompass most of the Jewish communities in Poland and White Russia, if its main demand was detachment from this world through an act of individual devequt, and its main aspect was its esoteric character, and not acceptance of social responsibility and intense activity.55 Here, as well, it must be emphasized that precisely this new trend of building an ethos for the broad public on the basis of the myth won so many hearts. And though chasidim, with R. Abraham among them, kept the traditional mystical demands, the main value in their lives was personal involvement, fraternal concern, and love that enabled them to realize this new ethos while building a communal life—a new congregation that from its

about my reluctance, in principle, to construct such a social model of the tzaddiq and the institution of the tzaddiq. 54 See the previous note. 55 See the extensive treatment in my article “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature,” 233.

114

C. Reader’s Guide

inception established a life in accordance with the halakhah, even though it threatened the old leadership and communal conventions.56 We have the testimony of Solomon Maimon regarding life in the court of the Maggid R. Dov Ber of Mezrich.57 Despite Maimon’s sharp criticism, there emerges from his words the magic of the Maggid as a Hasidic representative. This impression is confirmed by Maimon’s readiness to waste some weeks of his time after his teacher’s term [ha-zman] ended in order to go and taste the social life of R. Dov Ber’s chasidim.58 An atmosphere of spiritual elevation and the involvement of the rebbe in the life of each person are palpably felt, even when Maimon adds that this is nothing other that the shrewdness of the tzaddiq, who sends agents to collect information about everyone who comes to his court, so as to appear knowledgeable about the affairs and fates of the newcomers.59 Were this merely shrewdness, it is certain that R. Dov Ber would not have gained a continually increasing following of chasidim. There is no doubt that his circle represented a new, powerful social phenomenon—a community whose leader had a strong connection with the lives of his chasidim, not necessarily because he served as the intermediary between them and God, but, rather and above all else, from his being involved, concerned, and helpful in their mundane issues. The writings of the opponents of the chasidim testify specifically, as does the book Shivchei ha-BeSh”T, to the centrality of this earthly bond,60 behind which, no doubt, stands the example of AR”I’s mystic fellowship that lived the erotic myth. From AR”I’s community, the chasidim learned to create a 56 See ibid., 232. 57 See S. Maimon, Sefer Chayyei Shlomoh Maimon (Tel Aviv, 1952 [5713]), 141–146. 58 Ibid. On S. Maimon’s attitude to Hasidism, which, apparently, aroused deep stirrings in his soul, and whose echoes sound in the telling of his life story, see P. Lakhover, ‘Al Gvul ha-Yashan ve-ha-Chadash (Tel Aviv, 1950 [5711]), 159–161. Lakhover (ibid., 151–154) correctly sensed the influence of J. J. Rouseau’s Confessions on Maimon’s autobiographical writing. Nevertheless, he brings the testimony of Maimon’s contemporary, Dr. Shabbatai Joseph Wolf (ibid., 140–142), who notes that the old Jewish tradition was firmly rooted in Maimon’s sensitive soul, so that Maimon never liberated himself from this tradition, even when he changed his philosophy. This explains Maimon’s enthusiasm for the chasidim, who left its impression upon him. It did not fade with the passage of the years, in spite of the darts of criticism he aimed at them. 59 Ibid. 60 See my article “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature,” 228–230.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

115

small hidden circle around a tzaddiq like RaSh”Bi, but they and made it into a springboard for creating a large community of members, though intimate, that was open to the public, and at whose center stood a tzaddiq—again, like RaSh”Bi.61 Anyone who reads the writings of the Maggid R. Dov Ber of Mezrich will see that they are the immediate source for R. Abraham’s words on this matter. In his sermons, the Maggid of Mezrich explicitly mentioned the parallel between the revelation of God in the Torah and the revelation of Ein Sof in the sefirot, comparing them to the tzaddiq, who stands in the midst of the Jewish community, klal Yisra’el. As the exegetical language has it, all Jews “are responsible [‘arevim] one for another,”62 and, as explained by the Maggid of Mezrich, they are “are mixed in [me‘uravim] with each other.”63 In reading these words we recall the words of R. Moshe Cordovero (RaMa”Q) in Tomer Devorah, where he connected the mystery of androgyny (that is, the erotic myth), in its kabbalistic explanation—as the coupling union of the masculine sefirah with the feminine—to the mystical the inclusion of the Children of Israel into each other. In his words: All Israel are blood relatives with each other because the souls are all included in one another; there is a portion of one in the other. . . . And so, 61 For more on the transfer of RaSh”BI’s image from the Zohar onto the Hasidic tzaddiq, see above, note 32. It should also be noted that Solomon Maimon himself testifies inadvertently that among some of the leaders of the chasidim there are those who have spiritual traits like those of RaSh”BI, who was capable of incinerating anyone he gazed upon, or cause someone he looked on to turn into a heap of bones (see bShabbat 33b–34a). Solomon Maimon reports in Sefer Chayyei Shlomoh Maimon, 170n.50 that he knew such a person among the chasidim. “He was a young man of twenty-two, of very weak bodily constitution, lean and pale. He travelled in Poland as a missionary. In his look there was something so terrible, so commanding, that he ruled men by means of it quite despotically. . . .” Maimon also tells that “a great scholar, who would not believe the infallibility of this superior [emphasis in the original], was seized with such terror by his threatening look, that he fell into a violent fever of which he died [my emphasis—Z. G.]” (Solomon Maimon, Solomon Maimon: An Autobiography, trans. J. Clark Murray [Boston: Cupples and Hurd, 1888]). Maimon’s explanation for this is: “Such extraordinary courage and determination had this man attained merely through youthful exercises in Stoicism.” For an explanation about this type of Stoicism see Maimon, Sefer Chayyei Shlomoh Maimon, 148. 62 bShevu‘ot 39a. 63 See Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, ed. Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975–1976 [5736], original edition, Koretz, 1780–1781 [5741]), §132.

116

C. Reader’s Guide

for this reason, all Israel are combined [‘arevim] with each other because it is actually the case that in each person there is a portion of his fellow, and when one sins one harms oneself and also harms the part of his friend that is within him. Thus, regarding that portion, his friend is responsible [‘arev] for him. Therefore, they are relatives of each other. So, it is proper that each person wish for the good of his friend, and should view his friend’s good fortune favorably, and his honor should be as precious to him as his own,64 for he, himself, is actually the other. It is for this reason that we were commanded to “love your fellow as yourself ” [Leviticus 19:18].65 64 Based on Avot 2:10. 65 Tomer Devorah: The Palm Tree of Deborah, trans. Louis Jacobs (New York: SepherHermon Press, 1959–1960 [5720]), ch. 1, 9–10. Compare to RaMa”Q, Sefer Gerushin (Jerusalem, 5722), 11, where the inclusion of souls with each other at the time of the resurrection is discussed. Compare also to R.  Ch. Vital, Liqqutei Torah (Tel Aviv, 1962 [5723]), parshat Qedoshim, mitzvah “love your fellow as yourself,” 191. On this matter, see also B. Sack, “The Human as Mirror and the Concept of Mutual Responsibility (‘Arevut),” Da‘at 12 (1983 [5744]): 37–45. It is appropriate to note here the ancient Christian tradition that all people are part of the messiah’s body, “and if one limb should hurt all the limbs will hurt.” See I Corinthians 12:26–27. See also I Galatians 3:27–28; Colossians 3:10–11. See also Liebes, “Ha-Mashiach shel ha-Zohar,” 162n.270. Compare to Plutarch, Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans (Jerusalem, 1970 [5731]), Solon, section 18, 56. There is, with Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic philosopher, a conception of human unity as deriving from the intelligence being one with and part of the divinity above human beings, and the comparison of the bond between people to the bond of limbs in one body. See Marcus Aurelius, Meditations III:1, VII:34, XI:8, XII:26. The parable of the one body whose different limbs suffer when one of them is wounded is also found in the words of the Sages. See Mekhilta de RaSh”BI, ed. N. Epstein and E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem1954 [5715]), Yitro 19:5–7, 139. Compare to Mekhilta de R. Yishma‘el, ed. Horovitz and Rabin (Jerusalem, 1969 [5730]), Yitro 82, 209. See also Leviticus Rabbah 4:6, Seder Eliyahu Rabbah = Tanna de-Be Eliyahu, ed. Ish-Shalom (Jerusalem, 1968 [5729]), ch. 30, 56. A. A. Halevi discusses this parable in comparison to classical literature in his ‘Erkei ha-Aggadah ve-ha-Halakhah, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv1978 [5739]), 28–29. The parable is also used in Hebrew ethical homilies to restrain a Jew in his relation to his fellow who has caused him harm. See S. Uceda, Midrash Shmuel (Jerusalem, 5704), Avot 2:12, 36b, and cf. Shevet Mussar (Jerusalem, 1962 [5723]), ch. 36, 236–237. Its other function in the homilies is to arouse the Jewish public to aid their brethren in time of trouble. See the sermons of R. Yosef ben Meir Garcon, published by M. Benayahu, Mikha’el 7 (1981 [5742]): 189. Cf. the fellowship contract of the kabbalists of Beit El in the eighteenth century, in A. Ben Zion, Sar Shalom Sharabi (Jerusalem, 1929 [5690]), 89, and in Y. S. Gefner, ’Or ha-Shemesh (Jerusalem, 1969 [5730]), 41, 49. The Maggid Dov Ber limited this idea to the union between the tzaddiq and God during devequt, comparing it to the union of the body—tzaddiq—and his thought—the Holy Blessed One—that feels the body’s pain or need. See Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §26, 42–43.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

117

It has been claimed that the book Tomer Devorah “came to teach that the practical conclusions to be derived from the basic concepts of Kabbalah are no longer of interest to kabbalists alone. The entire collective of Yisrael is called upon from now on to set its ways of life and practices in accordance with these conclusions.”66 But anyone who thoroughly reads the book Tomer Devorah will see that it offers hardly any practical kabbalistic-ethical conclusions, neither in the matter of love, with which we are dealing, nor in any other matter. A practical ethical conclusion would mean some advice as to behavior and actions67—what, when, and how a Jew must perform according to the teaching of kabbalistic ethics—that is, an exact measure and nature of the mitzvah, for which the reader of the book is obligated according to RaMa”Q. If it is love of the other—how shall it be realized? Shall he develop close relations with an evil neighbor, despite the advice of the sages,68 shall he become friends with the wicked person, in business, in marital relations, or as a neighbor?69 Cf. the tradition in the name of the Chiddushei ha-RI”M, in Si‘ach Sarfei Qodesh, part 5 (Jerusalem, 1972 [5733]), §10, 19. For a beautiful modern literary expression for the bodily and spiritual union of people, see H. Hissin, Mas‘a be-Eretz ha-Muvtachat (Tel Aviv, 5742), 20. Y. Ber dealt with this extensively in his essay “Ha-Yesodot ve-ha-Hatchalot shel ’Irgun ha-Qehillah ha-Yehudit bi-Yamei ha-Beinayyim,” Zion 15 (1950 [5711]): 1–41. This article was also published in H. H. Ben Sasson (ed.), Ha-Qehillah ha-Yehudit bi-Yamei ha-Beinayyim (Jerusalem, 5736), 25–64, and in Y. Baer, Mechqarim u-Massot, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1985 [5746]), 60–100. 66 See M. Pachter, Sifrut ha-Derush ve-ha-Mussar shel Chakhamei Tzfat ba-Me’ah ha-16 u-Ma‘arekhet Ra‘ayonotehah ha-‘Iqariyim (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1975 [5736]), 357. 67 An extensive description and analysis of the hanhagah literary genre is given in my article “Hagdarat ha-Hanhagah ke-Sug Sifruti be-Sifrut ha-Mussar ha-‘Ivrit,” Kiryat Sefer 56 (1980 [5741]): 176–202. There I explain in detail how the hanhagot served as a propaganda and publicity tool that was very important for customs based on Kabbalah. See especially ibid., 182–183, 185–186. But here one should emphasize what is implied there—that the behaviors of the kabbalists dealt, above all, with orach chayyim, that is, ritual commandments, and they did not attempt to apply any specific kabbalistic custom to the broad area of interpersonal relations. Therefore, they did not make a broad addition or offer a general alternative to the laws of business (civil law) or torts (criminal law). One area in which they dealt, of course, extensively, was the matter of sexual relations between husband and wife, as reflecting the relations of male and female in the sefirotic world. See examples of this as they were transposed to the chasidim of the eighteenth century in my article “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature,” appendix 4, 301, nos. 3–4, and 302, no. 8. 68 According to Avot 1:7 and 2:9. 69 According to Avot 1:7.

118

C. Reader’s Guide

As RaMa”Q says in another place in Tomer Devorah: “He should habituate himself to bring the love of people into his heart, even the wicked, as if they were his brothers, and even more so, until he sets in his heart the love of all people. He should love in his heart even wicked people. . . .”70 Yet, even so, did he determine a detailed kabbalistic practice in that matter? If we assume that the example of the wicked person refers to one whom you are commanded to help when he has difficulty with his stalled donkey,71 then the words of RaMa”Q are nothing other than a repetition of an explicit scriptural verse and rabbinic teaching.72 In general, most, if not all, practices in Tomer Devorah are nothing other than rabbinic suggestions73 with some kabbalistic teaching added in order to give them a modicum of importance and holiness. In other words, there is not and there never was a new kabbalistic ethics—new behavioral instructions according to kabbalistic teaching—in Tomer Devorah. The book appealed and appeals to this day to the consciousness of the faithful of Israel in order to reinforce accepted rabbinic ethical instructions, from the days of the rabbis to the Middle Ages, by means of kabbalistic theosophy. These distinctions are important, since the main basis for rage against the chasidim of the BeSh”T was what happened in the lives of the chasidim, a development whose entire issue was the shaping of rules of behavior, whether between a community and its leader or between its members, that harmed and threatened the conventions ruling the general community and the relations of its leaders, rabbis, and scholars, with their flock. If new social life was created in Safed in accordance with the model of RaSh”Bi’s fellowship in the Zohar (a life including specific commands to the members of the fellowship to realize their love), these were for a small circle. RaMa”Q and his group assuredly formed the first template for joining a mystical fellowship such as RaSh”Bi’s, with their rituals 70 Tomer Devorah, ch. 2, 37. Cf. ibid., ch. 1, 25. Cf. also the Hasidic tradition as reflected in Midrash Pinechas (Jerusalem, 1970 [5731]), §16, 38a. 71 Tomer Devorah, ch. 1, 12–13. 72 See Exodus 23:5 and bPesakhim 113b. Cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Rotzea‘h u-Shemirat Nefesh 13:14. 73 Examples fill the entire Tomer Devorah. See, for example, Tomer Devorah, ch. 2, 28— looking down and not raising one’s head—in accordance with bBerakhot 43b and Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot De‘ot 1:8; ibid., ch. 2, 32—greet each person with a friendly countenance—see mAvot 1:15; ibid., not to say anything ugly—in accordance with bPesakhim 3a, and many others.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

119

of retreats into the fields and their particular practices that they even tried to spread outside of Israel.74 Tomer Devorah appealed, as stated, to the consciousness of the reader and did not try to fashion new kabbalistic customs. However, RaMa”Q’s student, R.  Eliyahu de Vidas, wrote the book Totz’ot Chayyim, whose entire point was to set up practices and practical guidance.75 However, the behavior of the Safed kabbalistic circles was not widespread or known in all Jewish communities when it was established, and certainly, the Safed kabbalists did not threaten the way of life of their contemporaneous communities or their leadership. While we have established the centrality of the AR”I and his circle in the implanting of the erotic myth, its popularization and further development is due specifically to the later kabbalists and chasidim, who were under the influence of AR”I’s circle, many years after its existence. Let us return to the Maggid, R. Dov Ber of Mezrich. In addition to the words of R. Moshe Cordovero, another parallel to his words quoted above is the saying common in Hasidic writings, “The blessed Holy One, Torah [oraita], and Israel are all one.”76 It expresses the actual unity, not obviously felt, and, thus, mystical, among the different components of the Jewish existence in the world. The Maggid of Mezrich did not limit his words to interpersonal connections, or to a general proposition about the relationship between a tzaddiq and his flock, who are bound to each other. Rather, he explicitly set forth the parallel between interpersonal contact 74 See Pachter, Sifrut ha-Derush, 409–410; and my article, “Hagdarat ha-Hanhagah ke-Sug Sifruti be-Sifrut ha-Mussar ha-‘Ivrit,” 182. Importantly, the messianic fervor in Safed was also fed by a parallel fervor in Jerusalem. On the relation of Jerusalem kabbalists and their prayer innovations to those of the Safed kabbalists see I. Robinson, “Messianic Prayer Vigils in Jerusalem in the Early Sixteenth Century,” JQR 72 (1981): 32–42. My thanks to Prof. M. Idel for referring me to that article. He also informed me that he found, in a ms. of Abraham Ha-Levi of Safed, similarly to one cited by Robinson, an addition to the prayers instructing that no person should hate his fellow in his heart. This is before such a ruling by the AR”I (see above, note 24). 75 See Mordekhai Pachter, “Sefer Rei’shit Chokhmah le-Rabi Eliyahu di Vidas ve-Qitzurav,” Kiryat Sefer 47 (1971 [5732]): 690–696. 76 See Yisaiah Tishby, “Qudsha Berikh Hu Oraita ve-Yisra’el Kula Chad,” Kiryat Sefer 50 (1974) [5735]): 480–492, 668–674. See also my note in my article, “‘Arikhat Tzava‘at ha-RIVa”Sh,” “‘Arikhat Tzava‘at ha-Riva”Sh,” 198n.56. And See also M. Idel, “Shtei He’arot ‘al Sefer Cherev Pifiyot le-R. Yair ben Shabbtai,” Kiryat Sefer 53 (1977 [5738]): 213–214. See also B. Zak, “‘Od le-Gilgulah shel ha-Imrah Qudsha Berikh Hu Oraita ve-Yisra’el Kula Chad,” Kiryat Sefer 57 (1981 [5742]): 179-184.

120

C. Reader’s Guide

and the intimate contact between a person and the world of sefirot. For both acts, the prerequisite is diminution (tzimtzum).77 Therefore, if the one who influences does not limit his influence in accord with the receptive ability of the one being influenced, and if the one being influenced does not nullify his consciousness and remove any barriers of pride and awareness of self-worth, the intimate contact will not take place appropriately. These are the Maggid’s words: Just as a person appears before the mirror, so does the visage in the mirror appear to him. That is, if he presents himself before him in smallness, as, in truth, he is a putrid drop, so does the blessed Holy One constrict Himself before him so that he will be able to bear Him. But, when he appears in more grandiosity than is fitting, then the blessed Holy One also presents Himself before him in grandiosity, and the grandiosity of the Creator cannot be borne by any creature except through much constriction, as is known. And this is [what is meant by] “And you shall make two cherubs” [Exodus 25:18]. For they are the small faces of youths [bSukkah 5b]. This means that you must, through your deeds and your humility, bring about that the blessed Holy One will constrict Himself and appear to you in smallness. This is like a father who sees his son playing a game with nuts, or, from his love for him, even plays it with him. Although, from the father’s side this looks like an act of foolishness, still, out of his love for his son, so that he will have pleasure from him, he constricts his great 77 The concept of self-diminution is already found in our sources, bSotah 10b, bMegillah11a, Massekhet Heikhalot, ch. 7; A. Jellinek, Beit ha-Midrash, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1966 [5727]), 46, Genesis Rabbah 6:4, 37:7, on the verse ve-shem achiv yoqtan (Genesis 10:25). See also RaSh”I to Genesis 10:26. As an expression of humility, it is, of course, common in the ethical and kabbalistic literature throughout the generations. See, for example, Yekutiel of Rome, Ma‘alot ha-Middot (Jerusalem, 2007 [5768]), Ma‘alat ha-‘Anavah, 117; Zohar I:122b; III:168a–b; Rei’shit Chokhmah, Sha‘ar ha-‘Anavah, ch. 6, 232a–233e, and ch. 7, 239b; M. Ch. Luzzato, Messilat Yesharim (Jerusalem, 2003 [5764]), ch. 24, 113. See, also below, note 83 and the accompanying text. It is to be noted that the demand for self-diminution is already found among the Stoic sages, as mentioned by Epictetus in his ethical booklet: “If someone should inform you that someone has spoken ill of you, do not justify yourself about what he said, but answer, ‘Apparently he did not know the rest of my defects. For, otherwise he would not say only that.’” See the Hebrew translation by D. Goldschmidt in Shai le-Yisha‘ayahu: Sefer ha-Yovel le-R.  Yesha‘ayhu Wolfsberg (Tel Aviv, 1955 [5716]), section 36, 335; and cf. the translation by N. Shpigel in the addendum to his Markus Aurelius: Keisar u-Filosof (Jerusalem, 1979 [5740]), 220.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

121

intelligence and dwells in smallness, so that the son will be able to take it in. But, were he to behave toward him according to his own intelligence, the son would not be able to take it in, and the father would not receive any pleasure from him. Mark this.78

Here, the Maggid of Mezrich adds demands for self-diminution from one who wishes to connect with his friend. It resembles the diminution required prior to the revelation of existence in the world of sefirot. We make the association with the verse, “Wisdom is found from Nothingness [‘ayin]” (Job 28:12). Here is his formulation: And because the Patriarchs kept themselves in the aspects of Wisdom, which is small, therefore the commandment of circumcision was given to them, for it is the cutting away of externals, that is, the foreskin—‘orlah, which has the same letters as le-ra‘ah, making do with only a little, which is smallness. This aspect is called el shaddai—the One Who said to His world, “It is enough” [she amar dai, bChagigah 12a], which is diminution. And as the Name points to connection, indeed, connection comes about because of this [another version: ayin; diminution], that is, Wisdom, for a person will not connect with his fellow except by making himself small and seeing himself as nothing [‘ayin] before his friend, thereby bonding with his friend.79

In another place it is reported in the name of the Maggid: “Sometimes, when he binds his friend’s thoughts above, he can change his friend’s thoughts as he wishes.”80 The implication of the second part of this blunt 78 Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov 132, 228–229. 79 Ibid., 230. 80 See Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §31. See also ibid., in the index, s.v. mashal, mishlei av 6, mishlei ha-rav ve-ha-talmid 1, for additional parables on tzimtzum and diminution. See also J. Weiss’s analysis, “The Great Maggid’s Theory of Contemplative Magic,” HUCA 31 (1960): 137–147. Weiss quoted the Maggid’s teaching that Levi Yitzchaq of Berdichev transcribed in Or ha-Emet and addressed the magic and contemplative side in interpersonal relations and in a person’s relations to his environment. Afterwards, Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer wrote extensively about the nullification of reality. See her book Ha-Chasidut ke-Mistikah (Jerusalem, 2007 [5768]), 22–31, 95–110. The Maggid of Mezrich used two parables in his homilies to flesh out the natural phenomenon of the need of every living being and plant to become nullified in order to change and form a new creation. One parable describes the emergence of a rooster from an egg, while the second is about wheat. See Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, in the index, 373, s.v. mashal. Weiss and Schatz-Uffenheimer did not know the earlier source for this idea in John 12:24, where it is said, in Delitsch’s translation: “I say to you—if the

122

C. Reader’s Guide

statement is an educational, controlling, behavioral tendency that might be considered negative by those who seek individual freedom. But, for our purposes it is specifically the first part that is important. It is clear that both parts cannot be realized without an intimate interpersonal contact whose first stage is the concentration of each person on another’s soul and contemplation of it. This contemplation is only a part of a shared intimate life, one that deviates quite a bit from the technical-mechanical uses of hypnotic methods. R. Abraham of Kalisk, following the Maggid of Mezrich, formulated the principle of discovering intimacy in fellowship. But he surely did not create a preferred model for behavior that did not already exist or that he wished to establish only among his flock. Again, Prof. Weiss did not see how often this matter was found in R. Abraham’s homilies, because he considered only some portions of letters that he mistakenly thought were one letter, printed in Peri ha-Aretz.81 A fuller reading of R. Abraham’s letters shows that he gave a detailed explanation of the conditions for interconnection between friends. These require exacting contemplation of the friend’s qualities, even if he were considered greater than the one who wished to connect with him. This is because it is possible that precisely the essential quality of the person who is considered inferior may, in fact, be greater than that of his friend. Your own correct and exacting self-assessment and that of your partner are a prior condition to a successful connection, which will only be realized if those seeking to connect with each other first remove the barriers of preconceptions. As R. Abraham writes: This is [the meaning of] “Israel are responsible [‘arevim] and commingled [meuravim] such that each one is included in his fellow and each one can raise his friend, when they are truly bound, to the quality that dominates seed of grain does not fall into the ground and die, it will remain alone. But when it dies it will make much fruit.” See also D. Sadan, “Chittah she-Nikberah,” Divrei ha-Akademia ha-Le’umit ha-Yisra’elit le-Mada`im 1, no. 9 (1965 [5726]). 81 Weiss’s mistake came about because in Peri ha-Aretz the words come as one continuum, as one unit. Halpern already clarified this in The Hasidic Immigration, 71, no. 46, and 72, no. 52. Cf. Peri ha-Aretz, 32b–33b. It should be noted that Teitelbaum, Ha-Rav mi-Liady, vol. 1, 139–140, cited a defective version from a manuscript of the letter in which it was cited, as Halpern also determined that it is from 1789. Cf. Peri ha-Aretz, 32b.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

123

him, which is his main root.  .  .  . But he cannot ascend through him except by diminishing himself before him. For each one has something missing in their fellow. And even if one is greater than his fellow, there is some quality in which his fellow is greater than he. So, by diminishing himself before his friend it becomes possible that his friend will draw him upwards toward the essential good that he has attained. For it is known that the recipient must be lesser than the one who influences. . . .82

In other places R.  Abraham emphasizes, as did the Maggid of Mezrich before him, the bond and mutual involvement of the tzaddiq and his congregation: “See that I stand between God and them on the holy mountain, opposite the established sitting of the exalted primordial Throne83 to bless Israel who are responsible for each other . . . because just as a person fastens their belt to their hips, so does each person and their friend, children of the Living God, join to each other.”84

82 See Barnai, Igrot, letter 36, 157–158. See also Granatstein, The Students, who cites this letter without any analysis and as part of his naive excitement over R. Abraham’s words. R. Abraham’s words were undoubtedly influenced by the story, well known in many versions in the ethical Hebrew literature and apparently, of Sufi origin, about a pious person who considered everyone better than himself, in keeping with the interpretation of Avot 1:6, “Judge every person on the side of merit.” See Duties of the Heart, ed. Kapah (Jerusalem, 1972 [5733]), gate 6, ch. 10, 301; Iggeret Musar shel Ha-Ramban, ed. Ch. D. Chavel (Jerusalem, 1962 [5723]), letter 9, 376. The author of Rei’shit Chokhmah copied it from there—see Rei’shit Chokhmah, Sha‘ar ha-‘Anavah, 32–33. Compare with the commentary of R. Chayyim Yosef David Azulai to Avot 1:6, mainly about the requirement for self-diminution, in which the story of the pious man is included. See Zero‘a Yamin (Petach ‘Eynayim), in his ‘Otzarot ha-ChID”A ‘al Massekhet Avot (Jerusalem, 1975 [5736]), 4a–d. 83 Based on Jeremiah 17:12. 84 The conclusion, of course, employs the words of the prophet, Jeremiah 13:11. However, the biblical text states: “for as the belt will cling to the hips of a man so have I bound to Me the entire House of Israel and the entire House of Judah, says the Eternal, to be for Me a people. . . .” See Barnai, Igrot, letter 50, 193–194, and letter 58, 222, 223–224, where there is a clear connecting of the tzaddiq and his community to the erotic mythos, as explained in the Zohar regarding sexual union. In addition, there is a late Hasidic tradition about behaviors that the Maggid of Mezrich learned from thieves, among these, that they love each other. See “‘Eser Orot,” in Sefer Zekhut Yisra’el (Tel Aviv, 1972 [5733]), 28, and compare to my article “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature,” 283, s.v. Moshe Leib ben Ya‘aqov mi-Sasov.

124

C. Reader’s Guide

R. Abraham made use of the formulation provided by R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk in his homily on brotherly love.85 In addition, R. Abraham here is influenced by R. Moshe Cordovero’s words on love towards worthless individuals (called “the wicked” by RaMa”Q)86 and on the sparking of the vitality of Jews in each other and their mutual involvement.87 Weiss emphatically claimed88 that R. Abraham borrowed the Maggid of Mezrich’s concept of the necessity for humility in interpersonal relationships, while omitting the matter of humility in the relationship between a person and his Creator. And the yearning for inclusion in mystical nothingness was channeled into the social plane, as well. Thus, phrases such as “make himself into nothingness [‘ayin]” or “the grasping of nothingness” were taken by in an ethical sense R. Abraham. So too was the meaning of the phrase “nullified in reality [batel bi-metzi’ut]” transferred from mystical ecstasis to social modesty and humility. Nevertheless, the careful reader of R. Abraham’s homilies in Chesed le-Abraham will see that the demand for interpersonal bonding is not his sole focus. Examination of the homilies in Chesed le-Abraham shows that: R.  Abraham used the term “shame” [bushah] specifically in the matter of relations between a person and God, as the person strives for mystical nothingness.89 For the phrase “nullified in reality,” as well, it appears that R. Abraham spoke of nullification of the nature persisting within one who arrives at the quality of Wisdom and Nothingness.90

Moreover, in the rest of his homilies R. Abraham, in the time-honored manner of Mussar masters, preaches on serving God in conjunction with 85 See Chesed le-Abraham [1943], parshat Va’Etchanan 6d–7a, compared to Barnai, Igrot, letter 36, 156, and compare to the parable of brotherly love in Yosher Divrei Emet, printed with Liqqutei ‘Ykarim without a separate title page (Jerusalem, 1973 [5734]), §9. 86 See Barnai, Igrot, letter 58, 224, as compared to Tomer Devorah, ch. 1, 23 and 25–26, and ch. 2, 37–38. 87 See Barnai, Igrot, letter 59, 227–228, as compared to Tomer Devorah, ch. 1, 9. 88 Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 88–89. 89 Chesed le-Abraham [1943], parshat Pinechas 6c, s.v. derekh mashal im hizdamen. . . . 90 Ibid., 6b, s.v. ve-ha-‘etzah she-tzarikh adam le-hitchazek . . . , and ibid., 6d, “it is also possible for the tzaddiq who serves God truly . . . as a personal redemption through the nullification of all his qualities except for the sole sake of God [emphasis mine].” See also ibid., s.v. ve-hineh Pinechas zakhah. . . .

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

125

the qualities of Love and Fear—that triggers tzimtzum—for without this conjunction service would dissolve in reality. Thus, the term “conjunction” is employed here in order to demand that service to God be performed with both these qualities as one.91 Weiss thought that R. Abraham’s wish was for the simplest things, and faith, for R. Abraham, was “simple and the same for every soul.” this assertion is based on Peri ha-Aretz, 32b, but Weiss clearly ignored the continuation of this phrase, “in accord with the quality of the source of his life-force,” which means that, practically speaking, faith is not the same for each person. The differences in faith correspond to the different roots of Jewish souls, whose number, according to the AR”I’s Kabbalah, is 600,000, the number of Israelites who left Egypt.92 In Weiss’s opinion, it is evident from R.  Abraham’s conception of devequt that his main interest was in interpersonal relationships. Therefore, R. Abraham viewed cleaving to God as a passive reception of God’s flow. This is how Weiss understood R. Abraham’s use of the concept of qatnut—“smallness.” As Weiss claimed, for R. Abraham’s Hasidic predecessors “smallness” was a negative state of inability to contemplate God, while he approached it as a positive state that made interpersonal bonding possible.93 Scholem had already maintained that the terms qatnut and gadlut were transferred from Lurianic theology to Hasidic spiritual anthropology.94 But Scholem was cautious in his words and pointed out that qatnut may have a positive meaning, especially regarding the descent of the tzaddiq.95 We might add that in Maggid of Mezrich’s main work, Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, qatnut mostly means a positive state of the one who 91 Ibid., haftarat Shoftim 7c–d. 92 See Weiss, “R.  Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 90. Regarding “the source of his life force,” see the literary use in AR”I, Sha’ar ha-Gilgulim, introduction, section 3, 5a: “Everything is according to the aspect of the source of souls of that generation [emphasis mine].” See also ibid., introduction, section 19, 19a: “The soul, whose root’s source is in that very place.” Regarding the roots of the soul in Lurianic Kabbalah, see above, note 24. 93 See Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 91–92. 94 See Scholem, “Devequt o Hitqashrut Intimit ‘im Elohim be-Rei’shit ha-Chasidut (Halakhah u-Ma‘aseh),” in his Devarim be-Go: Pirkei Morashah u-Techiyah, ed. A Shapira (Tel Aviv, 1975 [5736]), 342. 95 Ibid., 343–344. See also Yisaiah Tishby’s note in “Ha-Ra‘ayon ha-Meshichi ve-haMegamot ha-Meshichi’ot bi-Tzmichat ha-Chasidut,” Zion 32 (1966 [5727]): 14–15n.77.

126

C. Reader’s Guide

serves God, lowly in his own eyes and, thereby, achieving devequt. In other words, the accepted ethical demand for humility is established as a condition for alighting upon the ladder of mystical bonding. On the other hand, and as a direct consequence, the concept gadlut in Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov mainly signifies arrogance, that is, a negative state.96 From this examination of R. Abraham’s influences and his own writings, we see that he specifically valued active work in the process toward devequt, with a number of aspects: 1. A person’s speech allows him to reach the root of [divine] speaking, so that prayer and Torah study are acts that facilitate devequt.97 2. A person ascends the levels of the qualities of Love and Fear together, from the lower stages that exist in time to higher ones that transcend time,98 or, in other words, from fear of punishment to reverential awe and true love.99 3. Material service facilitates devequt.100 Additionally, R. Abraham emphasizes, together with the importance of service101 for connecting a person with God, the obligation of devequt that is separated from materiality.102 R.  Abraham also used the terms “worldly love [ahavat ‘olam]” and “great love [ahavah rabbah]” when 96 See Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov on qatnut, sections 132 (extracts from which I analyzed above), 133, 173, and 198. Only in section 205 the Maggid addresses the “small-mindedness” of a person on a lowly level of Divine service, parallel to the use of this term in Lurianic theosophy. On gadlut as meaning arrogance, see ibid., sections 18, 55, 70, 88, 105, 114, 132, 161, and 190. Only in section 133 there is an explicit homily about a father who deals with his son through gadlut, when the son grows up. That is, gadlut, in the positive meaning, was transferred from Lurianic theosophy to the soul-life of the person. 97 Chesed le-Abraham [1943], parshat Lekh Lekha, 3d. 98 Ibid., parshat Chayyei Sarah 4a. 99 See Liqqutei Amarim, part 2, letter 28, 42a, from Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk. 100 Chesed le-Abraham [1943], parshat Va’Etchanan, 7a, s.v. ve-hineih ha-adam be-khol davar she-hu ‘oseh . . . about material service in general. See, more fully, R. ShatzUffenheimer, Ha-Chasidut ke-Mitstikah, 14–18, 54–58, and in the index. 101 Chesed le-Abraham [1943], haftarat Ki Teitzei, 8b, s.v. ve-khen ‘al derekh zeh be-‘avodat ha-borei. . . . 102 Ibid., parshat Tavo, 8c, s.v. ve-khen tzarikh le-hitnaheg ha-adam be-‘atzmo. . . . See also ibid., col. d: lefanot ‘atzmo mi-kol ‘inyanav mi-zeh ha-‘olam le-gamrei.

From Mythos to Ethos: Contours of a Portrait of R. Abraham of Kalisk

127

he dealt with the influx that comes from above. It appears that his use conveys that the servant of God is not passive.103 “Worldly love,” human love, is defective compared to “great love” that is the complete love of the blessed Holy One. “Great love” is attained by the one who has already mastered “worldly love,” and with the aid of its influx he repairs harsh judgments.104 All the homilies we have cited lead to the conclusion that it would be an exaggeration to assume, following Weiss, that R. Abraham and his circle were a new expression of a contemplative community, bound within itself in “a strong interpersonal bond.”105 R. Abraham, indeed, formulated rules for an intimate life as he lived it himself, but, in our view, this is not an illustrative example of his manner of leadership nor of the ways of his community. We have already found that his teacher, the Maggid R. Dov Ber of Mezrich, on the one hand, demanded forgetting about distracting forces and drives, while on the other hand, demanded dealing with them. It is upon the researcher to decide, based on the homilies in general and other testimonies at hand, what was the essence of his leadership.106 In the case of R.  Abraham, it should be taken into consideration that he attempted to lead a community in the Diaspora while he lived in the Land of Israel. Because of physical detachment from that community, emphasis on intimate relationships was extremely important to him. Moreover, already during the lifetime of R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, chasidim started eagerly following another tzaddiq.107 This shift of allegiance and the accompanying conflicts between the chasidim did

103 Ibid., 8d–9b. 104 R. Abraham even goes further as he sets forth that, since the people of Israel is the treasured people, therefore, great love flows over it even without any action. It is interesting to note that R. Abraham did not here follow R. Dov Ber of Mezrich, who prolaimed that “great love” is the love of the righteous who do not sin, while worldly love is for the sustenance of the world and those who are repentant. See Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, section 71. Cf. the Zohar’s concept that “great love” is from the side of Chesed, while “worldly love” or “little love” (ahavah zuta) is from the side of Malkhut. See also Mishnat Ha-Zohar, vol. 2, 294. 105 See Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” 92. 106 See my article “The Hasidic Hanhagot Literature,” 234–236. 107 See Hilman, Igrot, letter 14, 19, now published by Barnai, Igrot, 103–111.

128

C. Reader’s Guide

not subside after Menachem Mendel’s death,108 even before the great controversy between R. Abraham and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady erupted in 1796 [5557]. One must remember that, even if R. Abraham acted impulsively and rashly in his youth, he matured into being the faithful aide to R. Menachem Mendel in the Land of Israel. He did not abandon the small community of his chasidim in Israel even when he felt that leadership in the Diaspora was slipping from his hands. At the same time, the community outside Israel, which was mainly composed of R. Menachem Mendel’s chasidim, was the main source of R. Abraham’s power, given his dependency upon its money and support. It is no accident that out of R. Abraham’s surviving writings are mostly letters, with very few homilies, beause dependency upon the community abroad and the desire to lead it from afar could only be translated into the language of letters borne at the hands of dedicated messengers. These letters, with some additional testimonies, have made it possible for us to sketch out some features of his portrait and his worldview. It seems that, despite our caution regarding the testimonies about R. Abraham and those from him, and the consideration of his writings, one may suppose that R. Abraham was among those expressing the new Hasidic ethos, both in his actions and his writings. This ethos realized the erotic myth within the Hasidic congregation. Its first carriers were R. Abraham’s teachers, the founders of Hasidism. Preeminent among them was R. Dov Ber of Mezrich, who established, in the way he led his community, a template and an example for the Hasidic loving fellowships founded by his disciples, among them the community of R. Abraham of Kalisk. —translated by David Greenstein (Congregation Shomrei Emunah, New Jersey) 108 See Barnai, Igrot, letter 42, 174. There R. Abraham presses the chasidim abroad to cling to the one appointed over the community abroad, R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, during the year 1788 [5549], the year R.  Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk died. R.  Abraham does this also right after R.  Menachem’s death, in ibid., letter 46, 183–184. There is no reason to interpret, as does Barnai (ibid., 184), that the new arrivals to Safed were not chasidim. Similarly, I do not understand why, in letter 56, from 1789 [5550] (ibid., 213), Barnai defines the subject as a controversy between chasidim and mitnaggedim rather than an internal Hasidic conflict. Regarding the instability of the leadership abroad and R. Abraham’s encouragement to follow R. Shne’ur Zalman in the years after R. Menachem’s death, see also Hilman, Igrot, letter 34, 52, and letter 47, 73.

Moving Mezrich: The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel Ariel Evan Mayse (Stanford University, California)

The letters of R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and R. Abraham of Kalisk give a unique glimpse into the formation of early Hasidism.1 These epistles shed light on the contours of the Hasidic fellowship in the Land of Israel, from specific events to key figures and communal experiences.2 But theological and ideational content of these letters, which has received less attention from scholars in the past, is of great value to the intellectual historian concerned with the development of Hasidic spirituality. These sources offer a robust portrait of the spiritual orientation 1 See Barnai, Igrot. All references to the epistles refer to this volume, and represent the work of the present author. For another important compendium of letters from this period, see Hillman, Igrot. 2 These letters are rich source for a social historians interested in the experience of Jewish sub-minority in Ottoman Palestine. On this context, see Meir Yizre’eli, Ha-Chasidim ha-Rishonim be-Yishuv Eretz-Yisra’el (Jerusalem: Reuven Mas, 1995); Jacob Barnai, The Jews of Palestine in the Eighteenth Century: Under the Patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine, trans. Naomi Goldblum (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1992); Amnon Cohen, Palestine in the 18th Century: Patterns of Government and Administration (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973).

130

C. Reader’s Guide

of the community, capturing a critical moment—or better, a series of moments—in the evolution of Hasidic thought as articulated in the works of figures that had once been disciples of R. Dov Ber of Mezrich. The Tiberian letters afford us a new perspective on the theology, or theologies, of R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham, allowing us to chart the development of these thinkers across several decades. And, when read critically and closely, these epistles yield new insights into the complex, often stormy relationship between these two Tiberian masters and their younger student and colleague R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady. The spiritual ethos expressed in the letters of R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and R.  Abraham of Kalisk is deeply rooted in the distinctive teachings of the Maggid of Mezrich. Shared features of their spiritual ethos include: the commitment to a devotional mode of Torah study grounded in the quest for devequt through the sacred text;3 the unconditioned demand for constant humility, as well as frequent adjurations to avoid the arch-sin of pride;4 the belief that opposition should be greeted with silence rather than reprisal;5 a distrust of the impure corporeal realm, and a desire to divest from and transcend all that is physical;6 and a vision of religious language as a vessel for divine vitality.7 The Tiberian masters also reveal the Maggid’s influence through specific teachings received from him as oral traditions,8 as well as more subtle references to his ideas that are unattributed but unmistakable. Throughout these letters, R. Dov Ber is referred to with a tone of unreserved deference and respect. 3 Barnai, Igrot, letter 17, 90–91. 4 Ibid., letter 21, 108. 5 Ibid., letter 19, 96–97. 6 Ibid., no. 21, 103-109. 7 Ibid., no. 39, 164. The image of letters as “palaces,” inherited from medieval Kabbalah, appears frequently in the teachings of the Ba‘al Shem Tov and the Maggid. See Ariel Evan Mayse, Speaking Infinities: God and Language in the Teachings of Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezritsh (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020), especially 45–95. 8 See the exegesis of Psalms 145:19 found in Barnai, Igrot, letter 58, 220, and cf. Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 7, 21; and ibid., no. 161, 257–262. See the discussion of this source in Arthur Green, “Around the Maggid’s Table: Tzaddiq, Leadership, and Popularization in the Circle of Dov Ber of Miedzyrzecz,” in his The Heart of the Matter: Studies in Jewish Mysticism and Theology (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2015), 119–166. For an example of a teaching from the Maggid invoked by R.  Abraham without direct attribution, see Chesed le-Abraham (Jerusalem, 2013), Lekh Lekha, 104–105, exploring a teacher’s use of parables in order to convey the ineffable to his students; and cf. Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 101, 178.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

131

The homilies of the Maggid, together with the image of his religious personality as preserved in Hasidic hagiography, left a vast imprint upon the ethos of Hasidism. His spiritual legacy holds within it many of the conceptual seeds that flourished in later Hasidism, from the notion of the tzaddiq to the inward journey of the contemplative worshiper. But the polychromatic development of Hasidic thought in the decades after his death shows that R. Dov Ber’s students carried forward his teachings in very different ways. The Maggid, it seems, was alert to the fact that his disciples would imbibe and interpret his homilies in various ways. In fact, some of the sermons attributed to him argue that a master teacher must be able to deliver a single homily that is simultaneously appropriate for many different listeners.9 This point is echoed in Solomon Maimon’s account of the sermon he witnessed at a Sabbath gathering during his brief stay in Mezrich: “each of us felt the part of the sermon dealing with his verse contained something referring directly to his own pressing personal concerns. Naturally, we were amazed.”10 Each attendee at the Maggid’s table came away with the impression of having been addressed personally by R. Dov Ber. This phenomenon of speaking to multiple students while engaging with the unique circumstances of each individual is rooted in the Maggid’s take on the nature of language and the dynamics of spiritual instruction. The master, says R. Dov Ber, projects his sublime (even ineffable) wisdom into a linguistic vehicle of words and letters. This container must be individually unpacked by his various students, and the results of their efforts surely differ from disciple to disciple. R. Ze’ev Wolf of Zhitomir, one of the Maggid’s prominent students, refers to a parable given by R. Dov Ber in order to illustrate why students interpret their master’s words so dissimilarly. We read: The Maggid once offered a parable about someone who travels to a faraway land with his merchandise. There [in that place] he sees wondrous and elevated things. At the time of the holidays, he returns home and tells his loved ones and relatives what his eyes have seen. Even while on the

9 Evan D. Mayse, Beyond the Letters: The Question of Language in the Teachings of Rabbi Dov Ber of Mezrich (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2015), 471–476. 10 Solomon Maimon, The Autobiography of Solomon Maimon, ed. Yitzhak Y. Melamed and Abraham P. Socher, trans. Paul Reitter (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018), 97.

132

C. Reader’s Guide

road he speaks quite a bit to the people and the community, [telling them] about the wondrous things he has seen, as is the way of the world. Of course, there are significant differences between the opinions of those who have been listening to his words. Each one [hears them] according to his understanding and the level of his contemplative connection to God. According to this, he inclines his ear to listen and bring forth for himself some hint of wisdom, for “there are no words without the voice being heard, which calls out turn to the path of YHVH” [Cf. Psalms 19:4 and Isaiah 40:3].11

This parable is surely an autobiographical account of the Maggid’s own spiritual journeys.12 R.  Dov Ber’s inward quest led him to the depths of consciousness, into the wordless realm of the pre-intellectual spirit, and, as he returns to the community, he cannot but seek to articulate the visions he has witnessed for others. Each of his various listeners, however, finds a different quality of meaning in the tale. The Maggid’s students interpret his words through their own frameworks of values and experiences, each extracting a unique kernel of wisdom from the same homily. This passage is complemented by another tradition from R.  Ze’ev Wolf, one that is explicitly biographical in its description of the Maggid’s practice: Once we were sitting in the Maggid’s house, where all sorts of people, young and old, had assembled. He opened his mouth to speak works of Torah, [saying]: a parable referred to in [the sages’] teaching: a person who has two wives, one young and the other old. The old one plucks his black hairs, the young plucks his white ones, and between the two of them he becomes bald.13 So it is with words of Torah. The sages were aroused to say that the Torah was given as black fire on white fire.14 “Black fire” refers to words of awe [or fear, yir’ah], such as ethical instruction [divrei mussarim], which applies to the youth who have not yet grasped the secret of YHVH. They 11 Or ha-Me’ir (Jerusalem, 2000), vol. 2, Kohelet, 312. 12 Tradition recalls that the Ba‘al Shem Tov also told stories with a self-referential element; see Toldot Ya‘aqov Yosef (Jerusalem, 2011), vol. 2, Tzav, 533. 13 bBava Kamma 60b. 14 ySotah 8:3; Tanchuma, Berei’shit 1.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

133

must be frightened by matters of awe and a terrifying whip.15 “White fire” refers to matters of love, allusions and secrets of Torah that apply to those enlightened people, teaching them the sublime taste of intellectual apprehension of God. Many people come before the master to ask things of him. Some pull him [in one direction] and ask about awe, a name for black fire. Others ask about matters of love. Between them he becomes “bald”— he cannot speak about anything. However, if he is an all-encompassing sage [chakham ha-kolel], with a broad soul and expanded consciousness, he can bring forth words that are equal before all, [understood by] each according to his rung and understanding. [Each disciple] can find rest for his soul, searching the intention of the master for [the lesson that] applies to his particular divine service.16

Some homilists or teachers are rendered speechless when it becomes clear that their students require such different things. Yet a master blessed with an expansive intellect will craft a sermon, carefully and creatively, in order to inspire each of his disciples in a manner that is individually appropriate. The message of R. Dov Ber’s interpretation this humorous talmudic story is thus: rather than retreating into silence, the homilist must use the power of words to express his ineffable wisdom and deliver a single sermon that is fitting for all of his students. This intentionally polysemous quality of R. Dov Ber’s sermons will serve as a useful frame for the present study of key issues in the ethos found in Tiberian letters as continuing, reinterpreting, and even challenging the theology of the Maggid of Mezrich. Our exploration will be grounded primarily in the epistles, juxtaposed and contrasted with the teachings of the Maggid and of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady. But we will also have occasion to reflect upon how the theology expressed in these letters relate to ethos found in the collected homilies of R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and R.  Abraham of Kalisk.17 These sermons were 15 See Zohar I:11b. 16 Or ha-Me’ir, vol. 2, Devarim, 160. On these stories, see Mayse, Speaking Infinities, 195–196. 17 The present essay centers on R.  Abraham of Kalisk’s teachings, since elsewhere I have examined the relationship between the sermons of R.  Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and those of the Maggid; see Ariel Evan Mayse, “Peri ha-Arets: Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Vitebsk and his Devotional Path in the Context of the Maggid’s

134

C. Reader’s Guide

addressed to a very different audience, and significant differences—as well as some striking consistencies—emerge from this comparison.18 The ecstatic, elitist, and emotion-centered spiritual path of the Tiberian masters and the highly intellectual, contemplative Hasidism founded by R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady are both rooted in the theology of R.  Dov Ber of Mezrich. The central tenets of the Tiberian masters, including the quest to attain the rung of Keter (or Ratzon, the highest of the sefirot associated with the divine Will),19 the central place afforded to emunah (“faith”), and the emphasis on absolute divine providence,20 are all present in the Maggid’s legacy, but are intensified and amplified significantly in these Tiberian letters. The same is true for the Tiberian emphasis on the primacy of the soul-work of the middot (“character traits”) rather than R. Shne’ur Zalman’s call to develop the one’s cognitive faculties in order to restrain the middot and rule over them.21 This interpretation highlights one particular thrust of the Maggid’s devotional legacy. But the spiritual path of the Tiberian masters undoubtedly minimizes, whether consciously or unconsciously, an equally prominent element of R. Dov Ber’s sermons that focuses on the unique capacity of the human mind in bridging the gap between God and man. The Tiberian masters and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady all followed the Maggid in articulating a religious path that seeks nothing less than the immediate and intimate experience of the Divine Presence, but a vast chasm separates Circle,” in Alchemy of Love: Hasidic Masters in Search of Homeland and Community, ed. Aubrey Glazer and Nehemia Polen (Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, forthcoming). See also Moshe Hallamish, “The Teachings of R. Menahem Mendel of Vitebsk,” in Hasidism Reappraised, ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert (London: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1997), 268–287; Ze’ev Gries, “From Myth to Ethos—Outlines for the History of R.  Abraham of Kalisk” [Heb.], in Umah ve-Toldoteiah, ed. Shmuel Ettinger (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1984 [5744]), vol. 2, 117–146 [in this current volume, 90-128--Ed.] and Gershon Hundert, “Toward a Biography of R. Abraham Kalisker.” 18 It is worth noting that R. Abraham describes a passage in one of his letters as further elucidating a sermon given on the Sabbath; see Barnai, Igrot, letter 24, 120. 19 Barnai, Igrot, letter 21, 105; ibid., letter 19, 96. Cf. Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 124, 210; ibid., no. 1, 9; no. 131, 224-226; and no. 198, 320. See also Mayse, “Beyond the Letters,” 14–15, 202, and 237–238 for a discussion of the relationship between chokhmah and keter in the Maggid’s teachings. 20 Barnai, Igrot, letter 56, 214. 21 Ibid., letter 17, 90–91.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

135

their methods for attaining this goal as well as the vocabulary they use to describe it.22

The Physical World and the Land of Israel The Tiberian letters reveal a devotional community in the Holy Land struggling to make theological sense of Hasidic panentheism amid the straits of abject poverty.23 The theology of the Ba‘al Shem Tov underscores God’s immanence throughout the cosmos and in all human experiences, including the crushing travails of destitution and the pain of failed

22 The emphasis on devequt is, of course, key to the legacy of the BeSh”T; see Gershom Scholem, “Devekut, or Communion with God,” in his The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken Books, 1995), 203– 227. See also Chesed le-Abraham [2013], Va’Etchanan, 116; and ibid., Mishpatim, 110, where attaining devequt ushers in a private, inward redemption. This personal awakening may be a microcosm of the national redemption, though it is not necessarily so; see Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer, “Self-Redemption in Hasidic Thought,” in Types of Redemption: Contributions to the Themes of the Study-Conference Held at Jerusalem 14th to 19th July, ed. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and C. J. Bleeker (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 207–212; Morris M. Faierstein, “Personal Redemption in Hasidism,” in Hasidism Reappraised, ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert (London: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1997), 214–224. Descriptions of devequt and exhortations to work toward this illuminated state abound in this collection of letters; see Barnai, Igrot, letter 56, 212–216. Glazer and Polen have noted that the term devequt as such does not appear in Sefer shel Beinonim, the first section of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady’s Tanya. Although the form itdabqut does crop up in Sefer shel Beinonim (chs. 45–46), and the word devequt occurs more than a dozen times in the homilies found in Torah Or (Brooklyn, 2012) and Liqqutei Torah (Brooklyn, 2012), this lacuna in Sefer shel Beinonim is striking and deservers further inquiry. I would also like to emphasize that different modalities of devequt appear in the Tiberian letters, where the term is applied across a spectrum of intensity. This is very much in keeping with the Maggid’s notion of gadlut and qatnut, a synergic dyad of experience in which the worshiper shuttles back and forth between moments of heightened awareness followed by a stage of constriction and diminution, only to rise up once more. See Mayse, “Beyond the Letters,” 394–396, 490–493; and Mordekhai Pachter, “Katnut (‘Smallness’) and Gadlut (‘Greatness’) in Lurianic Kabbalah” [Heb.], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 10 (1992): 171–210. All citations from Tanya in this article are based upon Liqqutei Amarim—Tanya, Bi-Lingual Edition, revised edition, trans. Nissan Mindel, introductions by Nisen Mangel, Zalman I. Posner, and Jacob Immanuel Schochet (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1998). 23 Barnai, Igrot, letter 21, 104–111.

136

C. Reader’s Guide

attempts to earn a living.24 Many Hasidic traditions describe the great poverty of the Maggid’s family, and several of R.  Dov Baer’s homilies underscore the religious significance such dire circumstances.25 While some late eighteenth-century Hasidic masters were beginning to comport themselves in a more regal style, the direct disciples of the Maggid by and large shied away from such a path. This includes the Tiberian masters, for whom indigence (and dislocation) were a lived reality as well as a religious ideal. This situation of poverty was supported, as well as challenged, by the theology of R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham. The rather extreme position of the Tiberian masters vis-à-vis the corporeal world, although a departure from the more embracing attitude of the BeSh”T, it is very much in line with the asceticism that characterized the Maggid. Such as stance is unsurprising for a Hasidic devoted to cultivating the inner, spiritual life. R. Abraham of Kalisk, amplifying the position of R. Menachem Mendel, allows for only very temporary forays into praying for one’s material needs.26 The point of such “descent” into physical concerns, he argues, must by only for the sake of returning to an even higher state of communion with the divine.27 R. Menachem Mendel was troubled by the issue of how to best advise his followers in regard to making a living. This problem, though perhaps made particularly acute by his own essential indifference to material circumstances, was mediated by his sympathy for their plight and 24 See Keter Shem Tov ha-Shalem (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 2004), no. 26, 20. 25 See Igra de-Pirka (Brooklyn, 2005), ch. 1. See Ner Yisra’el (Bnei Brak, 1994), vol. 6, 430, for a story in which the Maggid was so poor that he could not even give his own son a single coin as a wedding present. See also Sefer Liqqutei Amarim (Jerusalem, 2009), 35–36. Haviva Pedaya, “Social-Religious-Economic Model of Hasidism,” in Tzaddiq and Devotees: Historical and Sociological Aspects of Hasidism [Heb.], ed. D. Assaf (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2001), 343–344, identifies poverty as a religious value as one of the elements that connects certain early Hasidic leaders, including the Maggid, to older models of Eastern European piety. 26 Barnai, Igrot, letter 56, 212–216. Cf. Chesed le-Abraham [2013], Ki Tavo, 119–120, for a homily describing the extent of the soul’s suffering while it is held captive by the body’s physical form. 27 Barnai, Igrot, letter 58, 221–222. Cf. Chesed le-Abraham [2013], Mishpatim, 110–111, where R.  Abraham claims that the human being was created in the image of the divinity so that he might bring together the physical worlds and, thus united, raise them up to their source (that is, keter).

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

137

his knowledge that the Tiberian community depended on funds from the community of White Russia. In a 1787 letter, he offers the following advice: [The following is another] general answer applicable to all, [offered thus] to avoid repetition, regarding anxiety over making a living especially as it is adversely affected. Everyone knows that the essence of a human is thought [machshavah]. Wherever a person’s thought may fall, that is where he is.28 One who [thinks of] impure matters becomes impure, and one [who thinks about] pure matters, is pure. Even regarding [divine] Judgment and Compassion—everything follows one’s thought. One’s vitality resides wherever his mind is present. Earning a living flows from that very place, as Scripture states: “Moreover, YHVH your God will bless you in all you do” [Deuteronomy 15:18]; and, “Commit your way unto YHVH; trust in Him, and He shall make it happen” [Psalms 37:5]. One should never make trust contingent upon a particular reason [sibah], as the Sages have taught, “wealth comes not from a trade.”29 One’s only obligation is to engage in some cause [sibah], some action [that is, a trade] to be a path and a gateway through which the blessing may flow. This is the meaning of, “will bless you”—there is no need to think too much about the proximal cause [that is, the particular method for channeling the divine blessing]. And this is, “Commit your path unto YHVH. . . and He shall make it happen”—the blessed One will bring forth the requested blessing from potential into actuality.30

A person’s deeds may appear to have power, but, in essence, they represent nothing more than specific avenues through which divine blessing will flow into the corporeal realm. The choice of profession is thus immaterial, since God’s bounty [shefa‘] may come through any of a nearly infinite variety of channels. One must perform all labor with the awareness that human work is only a finite conduit for divine vitality. 28 See Toldot Ya‘aqov Yosef [2011], vol. 1, Chayyei Sarah, 136; ibid., vol. 2, Shelah, 910; ibid., vol. 2, Mattot, 1115. See also Kedushat Levi, ed. M. Derbarmadiger (Monsey, NY, 1995), Eikhah, 372. Cf. Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 1, 11–12; and ibid., no. 28, 46. 29 mKiddushin 4:14. 30 Barnai, Igrot, letter 39, 168.

138

C. Reader’s Guide

There is, however, an element of agency in terms of how one frames the struggle to make a living. The Tiberian masters follow the BeSh”T in emphasizing the centrality of joy in all moments—including times of strife and travail, both spiritual and material.31 Opposition is a sign of blessing, says R. Menachem Mendel, and may itself serve as a channel through which God’s blessing will flow. Thus, one should pay no heed to the fact that Jews are often forced to change occupations in the face of economic plight: If one realizes that it is impossible to make a living in one [particular] way, he should turn away and take on some other avenue of support. It is my opinion that, even if the governmental decrees disappear and we are [once again] allowed to engage in certain trades, we should distance ourselves from them to the extent possible.32 Blessing does not dwell upon matters plagued by persecuting forces. This challenge to practicing our trade was already happening during earlier times of the BeSh”T and my teacher [the Maggid of Mezrich], in the communities of the Ukraine and Podolia. We laughed at such worries, for why should you care about changing a particular mode of making a living? Some find better and more lucrative ways of making money, to the point where their handiwork brings them divine blessing; their domains are then filled with silver and gold. While challenging times in one line of work may lead to a glut, however, a shift leads to unforeseen opportunities, when concealed blessings become revealed. The most important thing: emunah, especially in difficult times. . . . The humble heart must use such times as an opportunity to bring one closer to emunah. All the trials and tribulations are in order to bring the hears of Israel closer to their Father in heaven. Just as is says, “Pharaoh drew near, [the Israelites caught sight of the Egyptians advancing upon them]” [Exodus 14:10]—The Zohar teaches that “Pharaoh drew” their hearts to return to God. . . .33 31 See ibid., extolling the importance of joy and the transformative power of emunah in such moments. 32 On the influx of Jews to the liquor trade and the impact of similar governmental decrees in the nineteenth century, see Glenn Dynner, Yankel’s Tavern: Jews, Liquor, and Life in the Kingdom of Poland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), especially 47–81. 33 See Zohar I:81b, II:47a; and Keter Shem Tov, no. 20, 15, and no. 26, 17.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

139

“[YHVH God said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone]; I will make a fitting helper for him’” [Genesis 2:18]—opposition can itself be helpful. For without opposition, in this world of dichotomies created by God [cf. Eccl. 7:14], there would be no choice, reward and punishment. . . . For constant pleasure is no pleasure at all.34

Shifts in profession are considered superficial rather than substantive change, because they alter only the means by which God’s effluence enters the community. Yet R.  Menachem Mendel’s point is even more strident. He claims that in some cases opposition may actually be a positive sign, a point made often in Hasidic literature. But the author also suggests that the dire poverty of the Hasidic community in Israel can free the members from the pretense of investing in a particular trade. Beset by resistance on all sides and with no financial relief anywhere in sight, the Hasidic fellowship had no choice but to turn their bitter economic plight into a spiritual practice. This very concrete situation of abject poverty complicated the Tiberian masters’ insistence on unremitting divine Providence. The quest for perpetual devequt and the intimacy with God made possible by living the Holy Land should, at least in theory, lead to a reciprocal flow of blessing and divine providence.35 Although times were difficult in White Russia as well, the poverty in the land of Israel was incomparable. In light of this the Tiberian letters evince a theology in which the economic situation in the Holy Land is the most difficult because it is the locus of shekhinah’s most acute discontent: Although the shekhinah is downtrodden and humbled in exile, everything is nourished by Her [that is, even the nations of the world and the forces of the Other Side]. For all intents and purposes, poverty and lowliness apply to shekhinah Herself; therefore Israel are downtrodden [as well]. Now the Jews in Israel are more downtrodden than Jews in the Exile. But therein one encounters the greatest virtue in Her ascent—in raising Her

34 Barnai, Igrot, letter 24, 119–120. 35 Ibid., letter 56, 214, where God’s providence is offered in accord with human commitment; and ibid., no. 39, 168–169. Cf. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, III:17, 36, and 51.

140

C. Reader’s Guide

up they to arise with Her, above and above until the very Infinite One [‘ad Ein Sof]. Such are called “supporters of Torah.36”37

Surely such reasoning is pushed to the forefront in order to strengthen the appeal for charity from the followers in Europe. Throughout these letters R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham emphasize that giving alms to the bereft community in the land of Israel is a paramount spiritual value.38 The Hasidic community in the Holy Land comes to embody the Divine Presence, and to sustain this band of mystics is quite literally to nourish shekhinah.39 Sources such as these may thus be read as casting light upon the motivations behind their move to the Holy Land. The physical cosmos receives its spiritual vitality through shekhinah, the rung of the Godhead most immediately connected to the world. Yet shekhinah’s current state of brokenness is a portend of future redemption: the more downtrodden and depressed the Divine Presence in any particular location, the greater the possibility of uplift and empowerment. The dire material plight of the community in the land of Israel actually bespeaks an unparalleled opportunity for spiritual transformation, an ascent that will benefit the immediate community and subsequently flow to the community of chasidim in White Russia.40 The social and theological reasons for this Hasidic community’s immigration to the land of Israel are, of course, quite complicated and have been fiercely debated by contemporary scholars.41 Such a move is 36 Zohar III:53b. 37 Barnai, Igrot, letter 21, 106. 38 The notion that paupers in the land of Israel receive priority over all others is contentiously debated in halakhah; see Sifrei, piska 116, on Deuteronomy 15:7; Shulchan ‘Arukh, Yoreh De‘ah 251:3–6, and the comments of R. Shabbetai ha-Kohen ad loc. Cf. Shevet ha-Levi (Bnei Brak, 2002), vol. 5, no. 135:2, 142. 39 Barnai, Igrot, letter 21, 105–107. 40 See ibid., letter 24, 117–124; ibid., letter 56, 212–216. 41 For the scholarly debate over the reasons behind this move, see Immanuel Etkes, “On the Motivation for Hasidic Immigration (‘aliyah) to the Land of Israel,” Jewish History 27, nos. 2–4 (2013): 337–351; David Assaf, “‘The Rumor was Spread that the Messiah has Already Come’: New Light on the Aliyah of Hasidim in the Year 1777,” Zion 61, no. 3 (1996): 319–46; Ra’aya Haran, “R. Abraham of Kalisk and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady—A Friendship Cut off ” [Heb.] in Kolot Rabim: Sefer ha-Zikaron le-Rivqah Shatz-Ufenhaimer, ed. Rachel Elior and Joseph Dan (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1996) vol. 2, 399–428; idem, “The Doctrine of R.  Abraham Kalisk: The Path to Communion as the Legacy of the B’nei ‘Aliyah” [Heb.], Tarbiz 66, no. 4 (1996-97):

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

141

not necessarily forecast by fundaments of Hasidic theology. The Maggid of Mezrich reported to have said that the Holy Spirit may be found in Exile more readily than in the land of Israel.42 And Hasidic panentheism taken to its extreme may—though not necessarily—lead to a sense of spiritual geographic neutrality.43 If God is equally present in all places, why should one give up the modicum of material security in Eastern Europe for the abject poverty of the Holy Land? 44 The letters from R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham suggest that the move is precipitated by a longing for the experience of religious praxis in the Holy Land. Here the Tiberian masters stand as a link in a long chain of Jewish thinkers and kabbalists who have referred to performing the commandments in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, the seat of the Divine Presence, as qualitatively different from the religious observance in the Exile.45 The authors of the epistles justify their move in descriptions of 517–541 translated and included in this present volume; and idem, “Mah Heni‘a et Talmidei ha-Maggid La‘alot le-Eretz Yisra’el?,” Cathedra 76 (1995): 77–95. See also Haya Steiman-Katz, Rei’shitan shel ‘Aliyot ha-Chasidim (Jerusalem: n.p., 1987). 42 See Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 49, 70; and No‘am Elimelekh, ed. Gedalyah Nigal (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1978), vol. 1, 109–110. See also Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 78, 133–134, emphasizing the spiritual roots of all physical phenomena as a reason to look beyond one’s perception and into the divinity within all being. 43 See the exploration of this theme in Yoram Jacobson, “Exile and Redemption in Gur Hasidism” [Heb.], Da‘at 2–3 (1978–1979): 175–215; and idem, “The Land of Israel and Canaan: A Case Study in the Spiritual World of Gur Hasidism,” in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought, ed. Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 202–229. It is worth noting that later Hasidic sources refer to the rebbe’s court as a sacred space worthy of pilgrimage equal to that of the land of Israel; see Green, “The Zaddiq as Axis Mundi”; Uriel Gellman, Hasidism in Poland in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century: Typologies of Leadership and Devotees [Heb.] (PhD diss., Hebrew University, 2001), 55–71. On R. Nachman of Bratzlav’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land, see Arthur Green, Tormented Master: The Life and Spiritual Quest of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 1992), 63–93; and Ada Rapoport-Albert,  “Sheney Mekorot le-Te‘ur Nesi‘ato shel R. Nachman mi-Bratzlav le-Eretz Yisra’el,” Kiryat Sefer 46, no. 1 (1971): 147–153; Tsippi Kauffman, “The Ba‘al Shem Tov’s Journey to the Land of Israel” [Heb.], Zion 80, no. 1 (2015): 3–41. 44 It is worth noting that Antony Polonsky has demonstrated that quality of life and prosperity were on the rise for the late eighteenth-century Jews of Eastern Europe. See also Barnai, Igrot, letter 38, 169. 45 See Moshe Idel, “The Land of Israel in Medieval Kabbalah,” in The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives, ed. Lawrence A. Hoffman (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), 170–187; idem, “Some Conceptions of the Land of Israel in

142

C. Reader’s Guide

the unique spiritual quality of life in the land of Israel.46 It is noteworthy that the spiritual properties of the Holy Land, the religious importance of physically being there, are rarely invoked in the homilies published in Peri ha-Aretz and Chesed le-Abraham.47 In a letter from the 1790s, however, R.  Abraham of Kalisk attempted to convey his experience of the singularly of life in the Land to his faithful community in White Russia: This is my answer to those who seek to dwell in the Holy Land. You must know the words of the sages in the Midrash Shohar Tov on the verse, “O YHVH, you have favored your land; [you have restored Jacob’s fortune]” [Psalms 85:2]48—the blessed Holy ones turns it over and turns it over, watching over the Land until its deeds are fitting. There are so many constant changes and different events in the Holy Land; one who immigrates must become accustomed to this before he has any semblance of regularity. . . . One who comes here with “his teachings in hand” [talmudo beyado], with the spiritual mindset cultivated outside of the Land, may truly lose his sanity. Here his mind will “be torn into pieces” [Exodus 22:12] with no respite, from stream to sky, tossed around in the billowing waves of the sea. Such a one will burden the good will of those already here. . . . He will rest only after grasping the beauty of the Holy Land. But there Medieval Jewish Thought,” in A Straight Path: Studies in Medieval Philosophy and Culture, Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman, ed. Ruth Link-Salinger (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1988), 124–141; Haviva Pedaya, “The Divinity as Place and Time and the Holy Place in Jewish Mysticism,” in Sacred Space—Shrine, City, Land: Proceedings of the International Conference in Memory of Joshua Prawer, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar and R. J. Zwi Werblosky (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998), 84–111; and, more broadly, Moshe Hallamish and Aviezer Ravitzky (eds.), Land of Israel in Medieval Jewish Thought [Heb.] (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzchaq Ben-Tzvi, 1991). See also Aviezer Ravitzky, “A Land Adored yet Feared: The Land of Israel in Jewish Tradition,” in Homelands and Diasporas: Greeks, Jews and Their Migrations, ed. Minna Rozen (London: I. B. Tauris, 2008), 183–120. 46 See above. 47 This characteristic is shared by the homilies of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady as well. The Land of Israel is mentioned frequently, but most often it is invoked as a spiritual or symbolic ideal rather than a physical space upon which the mystic seeks to stand; see Torah Or (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 2008), Lekh Lekha, 13a; va-Yeshev, 26c; va-Era, 57d; Megillat Ester, 117d; and Liqqutei Torah (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 2008), Shelach Lekha, 36b–37b; Massa‘ei, 89b, 94a; ‘Ekev, 16c; Ki Tavo, 41c. 48 See Midrash Tehillim, psalm 85.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

143

is no way of knowing how long it takes and when this will happen. It happens for each person according to his capacity, deeds and the root of his soul. If you are really preparing to undertake this journey to the Holy [Land], do not cut off my ears with your complaints.49 See to it that your character traits [middot] are repaired, and that you rule over them. . . . 50

R.  Abraham of Kalisk describes his time in the land of Israel as unlike anything he has ever experienced. Patterns of mind and religious thinking cultivated in the Diaspora cannot help one navigate the sublime—but treacherous—spiritual vicissitudes of life in the Holy Land. He suggests that the fullness of religious uplift can only be attained within its borders, but such illumination can be neither predicted nor forced. An individual who wishes to be enveloped by the Divine Presence in the Land must be ready to give up everything attained thus far, from material security to previous spiritual advances, entering into a temporary state of unknowing. Finally, we should note that R. Abraham invokes his presence in the Holy Land as a source of authority in the conflict with R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady. In addition to his steadfast fidelity to the Maggid’s spiritual path and having served as the closest of R. Menachem Mendel’s disciples, R.Abraham asserts his voice as a the foremost leader of his community because of his place in the holiest of lands.51 He regards R.Shne’ur Zalman’s attacks on this teachings and influence as an affront to his own honor, of course, but R. Abraham also describes them as an insult to the sanctity of the Holy Land.52

Keeping Faith: The Worlds of the Middot The letters of R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and R. Abraham of Kalisk emphasize, time and again, that working on one’s middot (“character”

49 See bSanhedrin 106a. 50 Barnai, Igrot, letter 62, 234–235. 51 Ibid., letter 50, 194. 52 Ibid., letter 76, 277–280, which begins as follows: “The word of truth proceeds from the [Holy] Land . . . which shall surely be heard, giving life to yours souls.” Cf. ibid., letter 77, 280–283.

144

C. Reader’s Guide

or “spiritual traits”) is the core of one’s spiritual development.53 On this point there is total agreement between the Tiberian epistles and the collected sermons.54 These sources describe this process of penetrating introspection and inner transformation of the emotional faculties not as an adjunct to contemplative intellection, but as a robust interior world that represents the very heart-ground of spiritual formation. We read: The Zohar asks: why can we see angels, which are entirely spiritual beings? The answer is that they must take on a garment in order to be perceived.55 The same applies to our thoughts, which emerge from the World of Thought [‘olam ha-machshavah]; we know this is the most spiritual and sublime realm. But how can such [intangible] thoughts become manifest through a physical body? They become invested in the middot, such as love [halvah], awe [yir’ah], and splendor [hitpa’arut], descending to a place connected to the body. Sometimes these are the “external” middot [that is, which draw one toward physical pleasure]; one must oppose these and not act upon them. After the wayward desire has been broken, several times, the body will no longer be bound to it, and this pure thought will come to him through the lens of the divine middot: love of God, awe before the Divine, and [the will to] bring splendor to our Creator. . . .56

This comparison between the angelic bodies and the middot suggests that both serve as finite garments for sublime elements of the spirit. Another famous and repercussive Zoharic passage, surely well known to the 53 This understanding of the middot reaches Hasidism through kabbalistic-ethical works such as Moshe Cordovero’s Tomer Devorah (Venice, 1588); and Eliyahu de Vidas, Rei’shit Chokhmah (Venice, 1579). See also Moshe Idel, “On The Performing Body In Theosophical-Theurgical Kabbalah: Some Preliminary Remarks,”  in The Jewish Body: Corporeality, Society, and Identity in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period, ed. Maria Diemling and Giuseppe Veltri (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 249–272; Eitan P. Fishbane, “A Chariot for the Shekhinah: Identity and the Ideal Life in Sixteenth‐ Century Kabbalah,” Journal of Religious Ethics 37, no. 3 (2009): 385–418; Marla Segol, “Kabbalistic Self-Help: the Microcosm in Practice,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion  84, no. 3 (2016): 665–689; and Jonathan Garb, Yearnings of the Soul: Psychological Thought in Modern Kabbalah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015), 18, 32, 71–72. 54 The homilies of R.  Abraham, for example, are replete with formulations such as: “True devequt is connecting all the middot to the source and root, the life of the worlds”; see Chesed le-Abraham [2013], Va’Etchanan, 116. 55 See Zohar I:101a. 56 Barnai, Igrot, letter 21, 107.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

145

Tiberian masters, compares the angels to the divine Torah that predated Creation. Just as heavenly messengers must become invested in a corporeal garment in order to engage with the world, so was it necessary for God’s primordial—and presumably wordless—Scripture to take on a linguistic garb during the moment of Revelation. This garment is, of course, nothing less than the narratives and laws of the Torah, which translate the ineffable divine wisdom into the language of mankind. R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham attribute a similar function to the middot within each person: these attributes reveal the ever-unfolding Divine in concrete pathways that are comprehensible to the human mind and manifest within our theater of experience. Sources such as this detail an approach to the middot that is quite at odds with the belief that the mind must be brought rule over all emotive traits, a cornerstone of the spiritual path laid out by R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady.57 According to the Tiberian masters, true spiritual inspiration is accessible only through the every-changing network of middot. They serve as “garments” or “vessels” for revealing sacred vitality, and are thus worthy of consideration and contemplation. The worshiper must be attentive to the various ways in which they unfold, tracing them back into the depths of consciousness from which they emerged and thus identifying their origins in the Divine. The worshiper is called to improve his middot by directing them toward the service of God. An active stance of non-attachment to all physical desires is necessary to accomplish this, for only then can one pay careful mind to the divine element of the middot and through their unification reach upward—or inward—into the endless sea of God’s unity: 57 See, inter alia, Liqqutei Amarim—Tanya, Sefer shel Beinonim, ch. 16, fol. 21b. Rachel Elior, Paradoxical Ascent to God: The Kabbalistic Theosophy of Habad Hasidism, trans. Jeffrey M. Green (Albany: State University of New York, 1993); Naftali Loewental, Communicating the Infinite: The Emergence of the Habad School (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); Roman A. Foxbrunner, Habad: The Hasidism of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1992); Nehemia Polen, “Charismatic Leader, Charismatic Book: Rabbi Shneur Zalman’s Tanya and His Leadership,” in Rabbinic and Lay Communal Authority, ed. Suzanne Last Stone (New York: Yeshiva University, 2006), 53–64; Ariel Evan Mayse, “The Sacred Writ of Hasidism: The Tanya and the Spiritual Vision of R. Shneur Zalman of Liady,” in Books of the People: Revisiting Classic Works of Jewish Thought, ed. Stuart W. Halpern (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2017), 109–156.

146

C. Reader’s Guide

One’s eyes and heart must be continuously trained upon his middot, to interrogate them without respite and investigate them so that the light of his mind’s eye [‘eyn sikhlo] penetrates them, for in the light of their illumination there will be a light that stretches up to the Source of all life. If this is done with great sincerity, with consistent discernment, be assured that God will grant the sweetest taste, the most beautiful of all beauty.“[The sun rises, and the sun sets;] it hastens to its place where it rises up” [Ecclesiastes 1:5]. His eyes will be illuminated, such that others will say, “Look, this new thing is from our holy Torah”. . . . Thus he connects thread to thread, from the sparks of awe, twisting the threads into thick ropes of love. He will draw forth water from the deepest fountains, opening up the wellsprings and drawing forth water that never becomes brackish. . . . This yearning, a desire that consumes the soul, inclines one toward the divine source whence it was given. . . . One must let the fiery hand of God rest upon his heart. One must be ready, at all moments, for a heavenly fire to descend upon him.58

This passage is striking in its intensity, though it is by no means unique among the Tiberian letters. It claims that the work of the middot forges— or perhaps reveals—a gossamer web of interconnectivity, an inward-facing and interior ladder of ascent through which the worshiper attains the most intimate knowledge of the Divine. Refining and uplifting one’s own middot arouses the same attributes within the Divine, and the endurance of the very cosmos depends on this quest. This process of refining the middot is experiential as well as intellectual, for the appearance and uplifting of awe, fear, compassion, and the other middot transpires simultaneously within the Godhead and the heart of the devoted seeker. Yet emphasizing the middot should not be misconstrued as overwrought emotionalism or feckless spiritual spontaneity. The spiritual work of the middot requires constant receptivity and contemplative attention, for one must pay attention to the particular middah being expressed in each and every moment. The worshiper must maintain a posture of flexibility and presence, since he cannot simply force the mind to take control by subjugating or directing the other middot; doing so would elide the specific call of the hour, within the worshiper as well within the Godhead. Focusing on the middot means examining all phenomena 58 Barnai, Igrot, letter 21, 110.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

147

as temporary—but essential—stages in the unfolding of the Divine, and attention to the uniqueness of each development prevents excessive focus on one particular middah above and beyond all others: [God] gives power to each thing, animating and sustaining it, as He created it according to His will. He renews [the works] of creation each and every day. Just as it was at the beginning of Creation, so is it now—He sustains it according to his desire. Every moment it is sustained it is like He has created and renewed it again in every moment . . . there is no place devoid of Him. He surrounds everything, is within everything, filling all; He is the essence of all things, even coarse physicality and composite beings. . . . All [of this happens] upon the middot, which God revealed as the telos of the created world through them, as it says, “[For I have said,] ‘Love [chesed] created the world’” [Psalms 89:3]. By means of the middot everything happens; they are truly the vitality of every thing. There is no existence in the world outside of the seven middot. . . . This is [the meaning of the verse] “Know Him in all your ways” [Proverbs 3:6], as it says, “cleave to His middot” [bSotah 14a]. One must set upon his heart that every action, movement, sight, sound, thought, and word that comes to him, from whichever of the middot it comes, know that this is God, for there cannot be anything outside of Him. One must cleave to that middah, connecting it to the divine.59

This deeply kabbalistic rendering of Hasidic panentheism asserts that all Being is infused with the God. Awareness of the divine unity that undergirds everything, from the cosmos to all thoughts, emotions and human deeds, is the deepest sort of religious consciousness. Human beings experience life through a veil of multiplicity, but the worshiper is called to know God in all of his “ways”—that is, to examine the subtle fluctuations and changes in the world and the self, all of which gesture toward God’s presence and thus trace all phenomena back to their divine source. The Tiberian letters also emphasize that no single modality of spiritual service is appropriate for all people—or, to invoke the language of R. Shne’ur Zalman’s Tanya, for an entire “category” of people.60 Building 59 Ibid., letter 26, 129. 60 Ibid., letter 36, 156–158; and cf. Liqqutei Amarim—Tanya, Sefer shel Beinonim, ch. 1, 5a–b.

148

C. Reader’s Guide

on the talmudic truism that no two faces are alike,61 R. Abraham of Kalisk explains: The truth of the matter is that every human being is a microcosm, including within it all the worlds, and can serve as the foundation [yesod] of all the worlds. . . . Each [human being] is rooted in one permutation [that is, a unique assembly of middot], in which one middah is essential [that is, primary]. . . . All other traits follow it and the unfolding that are included in him. He includes all, and every middah includes them all. But the ascent of this primary, root middah is not comparable to the other middot that follow it. They are simply drawn after the key middah. . . . And the essence [that is, the essential trait] of this person is different than that of the other. Each ascends to the essence of his root, and all the other middot follow the dominant trait.62

Devotion inhabits many forms, which may be contextually appropriate for a particular person at various times. But spiritual work begins with identifying one’s predominant middah, a central character trait grounded in the individual’s singular soul-root. For some worshipers, the essential attribute may be intellective, but for many others the heart-middah is lies somewhere in the emotional realm. Properly responding to the call of the Divinity, thus “knowing” God in all of one’s ways, requires that one be attuned to his distinctive permutation of middot. R.  Abraham even suggests that such flexibility is necessary for the health of the entire fellowship as well, since each member has a unique spiritual task that fills a particular lack in the community. Thus interprets the adage of “all Israel are responsible for one another”63 as teaching that the spiritual journey of every individual worshiper complements, and even completes, those of the people around him. This description of spiritual service through embracing the middot, outlined in this 1786 letter, stands in direct contradistinction to the intellectually based contemplative system of Tanya. Yet the nuance of the Tiberian system, including a surprisingly tight connection between the intellectual and emotive faculties, is visible in other passages: 61 bBerakhot 58a. 62 Barnai, Igrot, letter 36, 157. 63 bShevu‘ot 39a.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

149

This matter is explained in many earlier works: This kind of intellection [sekhel], love and awe which flow over us—this is the devequt between us and the Holy One. Each person is free to choose: if one wants to strengthen himself and cultivate devequt—such a person will grow continuously with divine aid. And if, perish the thought, one chooses to diminish this devequt—it is diminished for him, leading to complete disconnection. . . . The intention is to cultivate a deep love for the Holy One—nothing but the Holy One.64

The worshiper must cultivate both love and awe, emotive middot that are simultaneously linked to the intellectual world of sekhel. Unifying these different faculties precipitates the onrush of devequt, overwhelming and uplifting the seeker to a new stage of experiential love for God. The Tiberian sources accent on the middot is connected to R. Menachem Mendel’s and R. Abraham’s emphasis on emunah (“faith”) rather than intellective contemplation.65 Rather than blind faith, however, the “secret of faith” [sod ha-emumah] is best understood as the mystical awareness of the unity of being as revealed through the multiplicity of the middot.66 This value is mirrored precisely in their published sermons, in which we find many passages like the following: Emunah is the foundation upon which all structures [kol ha-binyanim], including the middot, are built. Without emunah one cannot attain any attribute of love, awe [or any of the rest]. . . Through emunah one attains a listening heart, for the heart will listen and come to contemplation [hitbonnenut], understanding in the heart, coming then to chokhmah. . . .

64 Barnai, Igrot, letter 56, 214. 65 See ibid., letter 50, 192–194. The term emunah does have slightly different meanings for R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham. In latter’s epistles in the late 1790s and early 1800s, for example, emunah takes a clearly more anti-intellectual shade of meaning. Perhaps the unfolding debate over the nature of Hasidic spirituality with R. Shne’ur Zalman pushed R. Abraham to stress emotive simplicity to a degree far beyond either of his teachers. See also ibid., letter 65, 243–247. 66 Ibid., letter 62, 234. Surely this is a reformulation of the phrase raza de-mehemenuta found dozens of times throughout the Zohar; see Zohar I:22a, 38a–b, 55b; Zohar II:3a, 23b. See also Melila Hellner-Eshed, A River Flows From Eden: The Language of Mystical Experience in the Zohar, trans. Nathan Wolski (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009), 172.

150

C. Reader’s Guide

for “chokhmah emerged from Naught” [Job 28:12]. Thus through this emunah one travels from the final stage to the uppermost rung.67

The worshiper who moves beyond the world of seven lower middot, stretching into a contemplative realm beyond time, arrives at a place of sheer illumination. This unending light must then be drawn back into the world of the middot, infusing them with brilliance and spiritual power.68 Another brief case in point regarding the differences between the Tiberian ethos and that of R. Shne’ur Zalman, this time on the nature of mystical gnosis [da‘at] will be instructive. Both examples are interpretations of the verse, “Know [ve-yada‘ta] this day and take into your heart that YHVH is God, in the heavens above and upon the earth below; there is no other” (Deuteronomy 4:39). R. Shne’ur Zalman’s Sha‘ar ha-Yichud ve-ha-Emunah is anchored in a highly intellectual reading of this verse. He takes this to mean that God literally fills the worlds with divine energy, a fact that must be contemplated long and hard in the mind, and only then may be drawn into to heart.69 Like most other Hasidic masters, R.  Shne’ur Zalman reads the phrase, “there is no other” quite literally as “there is nothing other than Him,” suggesting that our perception of a differentiated cosmos, as well as our own individual existence, is ultimately an illusion. The inner essence of the Divinity, though expressed through the multiplicity of the physical world, is static and unchanging, and the worshiper must use his contemplative mind to seize upon this truth. Cultivating this intellectual knowledge [da‘at] that God is the source of all Being, and that everything in the universe is a manifestation of the divine, is among the foremost goals of the religious life. R.  Abraham of Kalisk, however, presents a very different mode of spiritual contemplation grounded in the same verse:

67 Chesed le-Abraham [2013], Ki Tissa, 112. See also ibid., Pinechas, 114–115. Cf. Peri ha-Aretz (Beitar Illit, 2014), vol. 1, Tetzaveh, 384. 68 See also Chesed le-Abraham [2013], Chayyei Sarah, 108–109. 69 See Liqqutei Amarim—Tanya, Sha‘ar ha-Yichud ve-ha-Emunah, ch. 1, fol. 76b; and ibid., ch. 6, fol. 81a.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

151

The ultimate goal of knowledge [yedi‘ah] is not to know. . . .70 But unlike the ignoramus [‘am ha-aretz] who attains this knowledge [without struggle], one must toil day and night in the quest to find this knowledge. . . . The more that a person invests in his divine service, connecting his thoughts and heart on high—with all the words and holy letters that leave his mouth, with all of his powers and with a burning desired to cleave to the blessed One, in the deepest sense of truth and without any ulterior motivation—the more he will feel a tremendous sense of pleasure and wondrous illumination. His soul will verily expire. No [intellectual] thought can grasp this illumination;71 it cannot be understood. Yet as one remains consistent in this service, ascending the mountain of God, moving from level to level, from day to day, the yesterday’s illumination will become understandable. Then a new and more sublime light will shine upon him, a brilliance that is inscrutable [in its intensity]. His pleasure in God will be wondrous indeed. So should it be from day to day. This is the meaning of, “Know [ve-yada‘ta] this day and take into your heart” [Deutronomy 4:39]: when you arrive at a knowledge of this illumination, called “day”—“take [it] into your heart,” for it is the heart that understands [mevin] the greatness of the Creator, unto the place [that is, boundary] of the mind’s understanding and into the realm of unknowing as well. But some [that is, most people] will fall from their previous levels. They must return to the search for the rung that was lost, for only Moses our teacher remained permanently at the fiftieth gate of understanding [binah].72

Sha‘ar ha-Yichud ve-ha-Emunah is thus the photographic negative of R.  Abraham of Kalisk’s approach to the life of the spirit, though both derive from the Maggid’s theological vision. R.  Shne’ur Zalman’s treatise is a systematic treatment of God’s unity, shot through with Lurianic 70 See Ben Porat Yosef (Jerusalem, 2011), vol. 1, 1–2; see also Davidson, ‘Otzar ha-Meshalim ve-ha-Pitgamim, 100; Diana Lobel, A Sufi-Jewish Dialogue: Philosophy and Mysticism in Bahya Ibn Paquda’s Duties of the Heart (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 111–113. 71 See Tikkunei ha-Zohar, ed. Reuven Margoliot (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1978), introduction, 17a. 72 Chesed le-Abraham [2013], Ki Teitzei, 118–-119.

152

C. Reader’s Guide

Kabbalah seemingly abstract and far-removed from the practice of worship.73 R.  Abraham, by contrast, describes each day’s divine service as a unique journey into uncertainty and illumination. 74 The goal of the spiritual quest is not to arrive at an intellectual, cerebral understanding of divine unity, but to harness the emotive powers of the human heart in order to transcend the finite limits of the mind and knowledge. Only thus, through embracing the yearnings of the heart and its capacity to grasp the known the unknown simultaneously, can the worship enter the sublime and ever-changing world of illuminated ecstasy.

The Living Teachers and Written Words There is a crucial element of the Maggid’s legacy that is deeply complicated in the Tiberian letters: the irreplaceable role of living teacher who offers oral instruction to his disciples. R.  Menachem Mendel and R.  Abraham’s epistles represent a pivot toward writing as a medium for conveying spiritual teachings, and thus a turning point in the early Hasidic approach to the written word. The letters sent from the Holy Land in the late 1770s were written and dispatched several years before the first Hasidic book was printed, and I believe that the epistles mark a quiet but important transition in the history of Hasidism. This step may have been taken solely out of necessity, given the great distance between the masters and their beloved followers and supporters, but I venture that such near-wholesale reliance on letters for spiritual instruction would have been unimaginable to the Ba‘al Shem Tov or to the Maggid.75 A famous story about the BeSh”T, frequently invoked in discussion about orality and Hasidism, illustrates this point: 73 My thanks to Eli Rubin for his insight in formulating this point. 74 In addition to various forms attributed to the Ba‘al Shem Tov and others in early Hasidism, a version of this dictum appears in Yitzchaq of Satanov’s 1784 work Imrei Binah. 75 On orality in Hasidism, see Moshe Rosman, “Hebrew Sources on the Baal Shem Tov: Usability vs. Reliability,” Jewish History 27, nos. 2–4 (2013): 153–169; Arthur Green, “The Hasidic Homily: Mystical Performance and Hermeneutical Process,” in As a Perennial Spring: A Festschrift Honoring Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, ed. Bentsi Cohen (New York: Downhill Publishing, 2013), 237–265; Gellman, Hasidism in Poland, 156–172; Moshe Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic (Albany: State

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

153

There was a man who wrote down the Torah [that is, the homilies] that he heard from the BeSh”T. Once the BeSh”T saw a demon walking and holding a book in his hand. He said to him: “What is the book that you hold in your hand?” He answered him: This is the book that you have written.” The BeSh”T then understood that there was a person who was writing down his Torah. He gathered all his followers and asked them: “Who among you is writing down my Torah?” The man admitted it and he brought the manuscript to the BeSh”T. The BeSh”T examined it and said: “There is not even a single word here that I have said.”76

This tale, though published decades after the death of the Ba‘al Shem Tov, offers an important key to understanding the centrality of spoken words of early Hasidism. Our reliance on this tale should be counterbalanced, however, by the fact that letters make up several of the few remaining authentic documents from the Ba‘al Shem Tov.77 The BeSh”T’s famous epistle to his brother-in-law R.  Gershon Kitover is marbled with both personal and theological material, though it refers to the impossibility of conveying some mystical insights—at least in writing, and perhaps in spoken words as well. Another letter addressed to his disciple R. Ya‘aqov Yosef of Pollonye includes some very interesting points of spiritual instruction, including a command to cease fasting and remember that devequt and service through joy are key religious precepts. Moreover, the University of New York, 1995), 239–244; idem, Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 470–481; Glenn Dynner, Men of Silk: The Hasidic Conquest of Polish Jewish Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 199–211; Arthur Green, “On Translating Hasidic Homilies,” Prooftexts 3 (1983): 63–72; Ze’ev Gries, “The Hasidic Managing Editor as an Agent of Culture,” in Hasidism Reappraised, ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert (London: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1997), 141–155; idem, The Book in Early Hasidism: Genres, Authors, Scribes, Managing Editors and its Review by their Contemporaries and Scholars [Heb.] (Tel Aviv: Ha-Qibbutz ha-Me’uhad, 1992), 27–28, 49–50; Moshe Rosman, Founder of Hasidism: A Quest for the Historical Baal Shem Tov, 2nd edition, with a new introduction (Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization), 138– 140; and Ariel Evan Mayse and Daniel Reiser, “Territories and Textures: The Hasidic Sermon as the Crossroads of Language and Culture,” Jewish Social Studies, n.s. 24, no. 1 (2018): 127–160. 76 Dan Ben-Amos and Jerome R.  Mintz, In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov [Shivhei ha-Besht]: The Earliest Collection of Legends about the Founder of Hasidism (Lanham: Jason Aronson Publishers, 1993), 179. 77 Rosman, Founder of Hasidism, 96–126.

154

C. Reader’s Guide

BeSh”T’s formulation discloses that he was replying in kind to a missive he had received from his student, suggesting that written communiqués were indeed being exchanged between the master and his disciples. A small number of teachings attributed to the Maggid refer to the act of writing as a spiritual practice,78 and he seems to have allowed— and perhaps even commanded—his disciples to write down his sermons. But the corpus of teachings in R. Dov Ber’s name generally emphasizes a theory of language and religious instruction grounded in the physical presence of the spiritual teacher. The sermon is an event, a moment of divine revelation akin to the theophany on Mount Sinai, and the spoken words of the master are animated by infinite meaning: “A teacher should always teach his student succinctly” [derekh qetzerah]. If a master wants his disciple to understand his expansive wisdom, but the student cannot receive it [in its current form], the teacher must focus his mind [sikhlo] into words and letters. For example, when one wants to pour from one vessel into another and is afraid lest it spill, he uses another vessel called a funnel. The liquid is contracted into this, and therefore the [second] vessel can receive it without any of it spilling outside. The matter is just the same with a teacher whose intellect is contracted into words and letters. He speaks them to the student, and through them the student can receive the master’s expansive mind.79

The spoken word is a living channel, a sort of linguistic “conduit” or vessel that is always connected to and animated by the mind of the teacher.80 Oral language is a garment, a paradoxically revealing veil placed upon the ineffable that enables the student to grasp the teacher’s wisdom. Although is no reason to assume that this same dynamic could not hold true for written language, R. Dov Ber never seems to pursue that direction. Countless times the Maggid refers to the worshiper becoming imbued with the world of speech [‘olam ha-dibbur], the realm of spoken language associated with Malkhut/shekhinah, but never suggests that a

78 Tzava’at ha-RiVa”Sh (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1998), no. 82, 34, and the parallels cited in the notes. 79 Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 101, 178. 80 See Michael J. Reddy, “The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language,” Metaphor and Thought 2 (1979): 164–201.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

155

divine quality called the “World of Writing” might become embodied in a mystic.81 The Tiberian letters, interpreted against this background, suggest a conceptual shift in early Hasidism toward an increasingly hybridized culture of writing and orality.82 R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady’s Tanya reveals a different sort of embrace of the written word, one that was likely precipitated by R. Menachem Mendel’s and R. Abraham’s turn to letters. But, as we shall see, the limited uses and potential dangers of written teachings were also a factor in the controversy between R. Abraham and R. Shne’ur Zalman. R.  Menachem Mendel and R.  Abraham were keenly alert to the problems inherent in attempting to guide their students in spiritual matters through written letters. The epistles frequently refer to the transformative encounter with a religious leader, for being in the presence of a tzaddiq and seeking his advice—orally rather than in writing—generates religious growth.83 But their hand was forced, as it were. The geographic distance compelled R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham to respond to 81 Such a statement would not have been without precedent. See Amos Goldreich, Automatic Writing in Zoharic Literature and Modernism [Heb.] (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2010). See also Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken Books, 1995), 103; R.  J. Zwi Werblowsky, “Mystical and Magical Contemplation: The Kabbalists in Sixteenth-Century Safed,” History of Religions 1 (1961): 15; Jonathan Garb, Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 69; Shahar Arzy, “Speaking With One’s Self: Autoscopic Phenomena in Writings from the Ecstatic Kabbalah,” Journal of Consciousness Studies 12, no. 11 (2005): 4–29. 82 Kabbalah since its earliest period has included a dialectic between concealment and dissemination, complicated by a secondary tension between spiritual creativity and received tradition (and in particular, oral tradition). See Gershom Scholem, “Revelation and Tradition as Religious Categories in Judaism,” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 282–303; Daniel Abrams, “Orality in the Kabbalistic School of Nachmanides: Preserving and Interpreting Esoteric Traditions and Texts,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 3 (1996): 85–102; Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 20–22; Haviva Pedaya, Name and Sanctuary in the Teaching of R. Isaac the Blind: A Comparative Study in the Writings of the Earliest Kabbalists (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001), especially 1–21; Elliot R.  Wolfson, “Beyond the Spoken Word: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Medieval Jewish Mysticism,” in Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion, ed. Yaakov Elman and Israel Gershoni (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 166–224. 83 Barnai, Igrot, letter 21, 110–111.

156

C. Reader’s Guide

their disciples in writing, and, when compounded with the wide variety of requests, this turn to letters required them to address their students in generalities (toward the community as a whole) rather than particulars (to the individual). In justifying this decision they suggested that the words of their letters, possessed of many layers of intention and meaning, could speak to each person’s unique needs. Thus, the formulation often applied to the Maggid’s polysemous oral homilies is strikingly invoked to explain the power of the written discourse sent from the Holy Land. It is noteworthy that R. Menachem Mendel refers to having written letters to his disciples with his own hand. This insistence may reflect a perception of intimacy with the master that comes from touching his authentic manuscript. It may also seek to readdress the issue of reliability, underscoring the students’ desire to receive messages directly from R.  Menachem Mendel rather than through the medium of a scribe or another disciple. In a 1787 letter, written quite near the time of his death, R. Menachem Mendel explains that he no longer had the energy to transcribe lengthy epistles by himself.84 However, lest his chasidim became concerned that his letters no longer accurately represented his beliefs and instructions, R. Menachem Mendel emphasized that he has checked and edited the communiqué. Furthermore, he reiterates that each disciple should treat the letter as if it is addressed to his very own soul. In a letter dispatched some decade after R.  Menachem Mendel’s death, many years after the written communication began, Abraham of Kalisk explores why such generalized epistles may still offer personal instruction: So behold I have received all the letters, including those of individuals from each and every one of you, from all the places in which you reside, and I have read them all. Each letter is a “remembrance before YHVH at all times” [Exodus 28:29]85—their tireless devotion, faithfulness and the wondrous quality of their love. Day and night my lips will not cease mentioning them, [when I call You to mind upon my bed;] as I think of You in the watches of the night” [Psalms 63:7]. 84 Ibid., letter 39, 162–168. 85 This biblical allusion to the breastplate of judgment worn by the High Priest, imagined as the highest authority in certain religious matters, calls to mind that R. Abraham of Kalisk was of priestly descent.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

157

My beloved brethren and companions: I have set my eyes and heart upon all their words, contemplating the core of their heart to intercede with my Creator, and to answer each and every thing in the right way, so that they might find respite and delight for their soul. . . I am writing to all of them [that is, to our disciples] to teach something about the general rule, That which is in the individual is also in the general [that is, communal When [the readers] contemplate each and every word [kol dibbur ve-amirah] [of these letters] in their heart, he shall hear [the message] and it shall transform and heal him. When he [that is, the disciple] connects with the hidden love of deepest concealment [through the letter]—each according to his own level—and my eyes are trained upon God, whatever they shall do will be illuminated and filled with life. They are inscribed on the tablet of my heart, to petition for them so that nothing good shall be withheld; and in them shall “a steadfast spirit shall be renewed” [Psalms 51:12].86

The readers of these epistles must take great care in order to find the personalized instruction buried within the general letter, thus identifying teachings calibrated for each disciple. In explaining this phenomenon, R. Abraham draws on terminology of the famous barayta of R. Yishma‘el, implying that exegesis of the epistles is similar to interpretation of a canonical and sacred work.87 Furthermore, his call to consider “each and every word” [kol dibbur ve-amira] refers to the text of the letter in terms usually reserved for spoken words. This suggests that there remains a hidden reservoir of inner, immediate—and highly oral—language invested within the written words of the letter. Yet despite shoring up the power of the written word, R. Abraham continues by suggesting that the disciples of the Tiberian masters seek out R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, intimating that latter’s spiritual advice may be more effective than 86 Barnai, Igrot, letter 58, 219–220. 87 See Abraham Shoshana, ed., Sifra on Leviticus according to Vatican Manuscript Assemani 66, vol. 1: Baraita de-R.  Ishmael (Jerusalem: Ofeq Institute, 1991); Gary Porton, “Rabbi Ishmael and his Thirteen Middot,” in Religion, Literature and Society in Ancient Israel, ed. Jacob Neusner (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987), 1–18; Aviram Ravitsky, “Aristotelian Logic and Talmudic Methodology: The Commentaries on the 13 Hermeneutic Principles and their Application of Logic,” in Judaic Logic, ed. Andrew Schumann (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010), 117–143.

158

C. Reader’s Guide

the imprecise written communication addressed to the community of students en mass.88 The Tiberian masters developed a theory of spiritual reciprocity in which the special quality of the letters exchanged between the master and his disciples goes both ways. R. Menachem Mendel writes that the image of his students was a permanently “inscribed” upon the fiber of his being,89 but R. Abraham frequently refers to having read the letters of his disciples with great tenderness and care.90 He pored over them, time and again, sensing the heartfelt spirit they had infused into the written word. R.  Abraham refers to the written letters of his disciples as a “remembrance before YHVH at all times” (Exodus 28:29).91 He describes the act of reading his students’ letters as a sacred communion between souls, a sort of dibbuq chaverim that takes place across time and space through the nexus of the written word. It is impossible to imagine that such intense written communiqués between master and disciple were commonplace among the Mezrich circle.92 With the Maggid occasional in-person visits were likely the rule, and there is no clear evidence of sustained interaction or spiritual instructions offered to disciples far away from the center. This framework of a Hasidic leader receiving soulful and detailed letters (rather than the more functional pitka’ot or kvitlekh) from his disciples could only happen in a situation in which the rebbe is separated from his many students by a great distance, a gap that, nevertheless, does not diminish—and perhaps even intensifies—his disciples’ longing for constant interaction. In a 1793 letter R. Abraham noted despairingly that, “the world is full of holy books, old and new,” perhaps referring to the outpouring of Hasidic and Kabbalistic books in the final decades of the eighteenth 88 Barnai, Igrot, letter 58, 220. 89 Ibid., letter 39, 162–168. 90 Ibid., letter 50, 193; cf. ibid., letter 56, 212–216. 91 Ibid., letter 58, 220. Cf. ibid., letter 59, 226. This fascinating point recalls Maimonides’s formulation of zikaron ba-shemu‘ot, used to describe the written records of oral traditions transcribed by rabbinic sages for personal use even during the classical period of the Oral Torah, a phrase that is also ascribed to the Maggid in reference to the transcribed versions of his oral homilies. See Mishneh Torah, haqdamah; and Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, haqdamah rishonah, 3. 92 Of course, collections such as Hillman, Igrot show the extent to which letters circulated among the Maggid’s disciples in the years after R. Dov Ber’s death.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

159

century.93 He asserts that the flourishing of such written works represent a downturn rather than a triumph. Because people have forgotten the illuminated quality of the spoken word, they feel the need to constantly look for new information rather than immersing themselves in a core teaching. The spiritual instruction in these books, he says, are only of utility if one already knows something, someone who understands from their own experience and looks upon religious writings—and oral instructions—with eyes of newness and renewal. R. Abraham includes in this trenchant critique the written words exchanged with his community in White Russia, decrying the fact that his followers have missed the unique source of flowing Oral Torah in their midst: none other than R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady. In fact, the ineffectual nature of written language leads him to assert that prayer on behalf of his chasidim is far more fruitful than sending them a trove of bootless letters.94 It is no coincidence that this letter predates the publication of the Tanya and the subsequent controversy with R. Shne’ur Zalman by several years. We should note that, only a few years earlier (1786), R.  Abraham of Kalisk suggested that R. Shne’ur Zalman’s written teachings [mikhtav qodsho] were an invaluable source of guidance and inspiration. 95 Filled as he was by the spirit of chokhmah, binah, and da‘at, his writings have much to offer the White Russian community of chasidim. R. Abraham seems to have clearly preferred for oral instruction, which enables careful integration and mediates the students’ exposure to difficult or overwhelming material. But in addition to his own letters to the community in White Russia, he underscored importance and spiritual value of R.  Shne’ur Zalman’s writings. The written word did indeed have its uses. This attitude shifted with the publication of the Tanya in 1796, after which R. Abraham’s rhetoric regarding the primacy of oral traditions— rather than written teachings—became increasingly florid and uncompromising.96 But we should note that R.  Shne’ur Zalman of Liady had clearly absorbed a deep respect for the power of the written word to 93 Barnai, Hasidic Letters, letter 59, 226–227; cf. ibid., letter 26, 131, instructing his disciples to hold onto and internalize a single teaching for an extended period of time rather than rushing from one spiritual vista to the next. 94 Ibid., letter 62, 232–235. Cf. ibid., letter 26, 131. 95 Ibid., letter 26, 131–132. 96 See also ibid., letter 65, 243–247.

160

C. Reader’s Guide

convey spiritual instruction from his teachers. He alludes to this fact in his introduction to the Tanya: It is known as a saying current among people—all our faithful [that is, the emergent Hasidic community]—that listening to words of moral advice is not the same as seeing and reading them in books.97 For the reader interprets [the master’s words] after his own manner and mind, [filtering and understanding them] according to his grasp and comprehension at that particular moment. . . I speak, however, to those who know me well, to each and every one of our faithful who live in our country and in lands adjacent to it, with whom words of affection have been frequently exchanged, and who have revealed to me all the secrets of their heart and mind in the service of God which is dependent on the heart. May my word percolate to them, and my tongue be like the pen of the scribe in these kuntresim [“writings”] that are entitled Liqqutei Amarim. [The teachings] have been selected from books and teachers, heavenly saints, whose souls are in Eden, and who are renowned among us. Some [of the teachings] are hinted to the wise, in the sacred epistles of our teachers in the Holy Land, may it be speedily rebuilt. Some of them I heard from their saintly mouths when they were here with us. All of them [that is, all of these teachings] are answers to the many questions that all the faithful in our country have constantly asked, seeking advice, each according to his station, so as to receive moral guidance in the service of God. Time no longer permits me to reply to everyone individually, and in detail, regarding his particular problem. Furthermore, forgetfulness is common. I have, therefore, recorded all the replies to all the questions, to be preserved as a sign-post and to serve as a visual reminder for each and every person, so that he will no longer press for admission to private conference with me. For in these he will find peace for his soul, and true counsel on every matter that he finds difficult in the service of God. . . .98 97 See also Me’or ‘Eynayim (Jerusalem: 2012), vol. 1, Chayyei Sarah, 72–73. See Liqqutei Moharan I:19. See also David B. Siff, “Shifting Ideologies of Orality and Literacy in Their Historical Context: Reb Nachman of Bratslav’s Embrace of the Book as a Means for Redemption,” Prooftexts 30, no. 2 (2010): 238–262; and Alec Irwin, “Face of Mystery, Mystery of a Face,” Harvard Theological Review 88, no. 3 (1995): 389–409. 98 Liqqutei Amarim—Tanya, 3b–41, based on the translation with a few key changes. See Mayse and Reiser, “Territories and Textures,” 135–137.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

161

The exigencies of time and the unremitting demand of his disciples, as well as the circulation of imperfect manuscripts, inspired R.  Shne’ur Zalman to put his ideas into writing and author a treatise on Hasidic theology that might offer instruction in his stead. Yet even in this case the shift from oral to written is incomplete, for in the next paragraphs R. Shne’ur Zalman acknowledges that some of his students will be unable to glean the necessary wisdom from his written works. He advises these students to seek direction from the elders of the community, thus encouraging them to learn from living role models and personal teachings. And, of course, R. Shne’ur Zalman continued to deliver a staggering number of oral discourses to his disciples, some of which were written down by his students and published decades after his death.99 These Tiberian epistles reveal that oral communication was still upheld as an ideal in R. Abraham’s theology long after the move to the Holy Land. This preference was, I suspect, further strengthened by his bitter rejection of R. Shne’ur Zalman’s Tanya, both because of its principle as well as the fact that it was a written treatise that could—at least in theory—be studied independently. In a relatively late 1809 letter, we read: Behold something that is quite dear to me. . . I have forged a covenant with my chosen [disciples], my soul’s beloved, to illuminate their path with a spark of the light of all life. In a single utterance,100 “the voice of YHVH kindles flames of fire” [Psalms 29:7]. Such matters can only take place through oral communication from mouth to ear, with the breath of the mouth, in heavenly fire, the voice arouses the intention, directing their hearts to faith [emunah] in their Father in Heaven. Such is not the case with things that are written, for everyone reads in his own way, each seeing it in light of his own praise [Proverbs 27:21] and misses the hidden treasures within; most of the words are thus impoverished. Therefore I have emphasized the transmission of emunah. However, emunah cannot be conveyed in its fullness simply by writing about it. It [that is, theoretical teachings on emunah] must be combined with emunah

99 Two important volumes of his sermons were published as Torah Or (Kopust, 1836) and Liqqutei Torah (Zhitomir, 1848). A significant number of other homilies remained in manuscript form and were printed for the first time as the Ma’amarei Admor Ha-Zaken series that began in 1957 and continues to the present day. 100 See bRosh ha-Shannah 27a.

162

C. Reader’s Guide

that has been communicated orally. . . . Such writing will only transmit the intellectual apprehension [sekhel shel davar] that is written [but not the inner experience].101

The written word is given to misunderstanding and multiple interpretations, for it is an expression of the intellect thrust into the highly cerebral framework of language. Oral words, by contrast, include the very heart and soul of a spiritual teaching in addition to its literal meaning, and thus carry infinitely more depth and impact. Emunah, a subject to which we’ll turn shortly, cannot ever be communicated in writing. It can only be conveyed through spoken, highly personal words and of course through embodied example by a living teacher. The double-barb of the R. Abraham’s formulation comes into focus if we remember that this letter, penned many years after the outbreak of his dispute with R. Shne’ur Zalman, seems to highlight the problematic elements of Tanya as a systematic, intellectually oriented theological treatise expressed precisely through written words. Against this background, it is fascinating to see that R. Abraham of Kalisk, in an appendix to a letter by R.  Menachem Mendel, alludes— albeit opaquely—to the infinite meaning of the written words held within sacred books.102 He reminds his readers that God created the cosmos through language, by means of combinations of letters, and that each person is therefore a unique permutation of divine vitality. R. Abraham suggests that the finite language of holy books is a kind of primal matter from which new interpretations are to be unpacked, unearthed, deconstructed, or elicited by later scholars. He then explains why each person’s expression of devotion is unique: the diversity of mankind and our individual spiritual lives reflects, or perhaps embodies, the polysemous nature of language itself. Each human being is a unique combination of letters, a specific and finite manifestation of an ever-infinite reservoir of infinite spiritual meaning and inspiration.103 Every worshiper is like a word, representing of a specific “root” (playing on the connection between grammatical roots and the “soul-root” of Lurianic Kabbalah) that gestures toward a reservoir of ultimate meaning but does not exhaust 101 Barnai, Igrot, letter 78, 283. 102 Ibid., letter 36, 157–158. 103 See also ibid., letter 39, 162–169.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

163

it. Both words and soulful seekers are linked together by their enduring connection to the ineffable.104

Living Letters: The Fellowship of Devotion and the Tzaddiq We now come to the question of dibbuq chaverim, one of the primary and most oft-repeated themes in this collection of Tiberian letters.105 Describing the soulful connections among fellowship in loving—even erotic—terms, R.  Menachem Mendel and R.  Abraham consistently emphasize the centrality of spiritual friendship as a core religious practice.106 All beings, they say, contain sacred light and holy letters; thus, the indwelling of sacred language forges an intractable bond between fellow seekers.107 Blindness to this inner divinity within all others the most terrible kind of narcissistic spiritual myopia. Attachment to other worshipers rounds out one’s own shortcomings, for lacking either dibbuq chaverim or devequt for God isolates him from the divine source of inspiration.108 Interconnectivity, including interpersonal empathy, and the heartfelt awareness of the pain of others can actually arouse divine compassion. The theurgic quality of this fraternal love and pathos is beautiful and striking. The Tiberian masters do not claim, to my knowledge, that dibbuq chaverim is part of the Maggid’s social legacy or his theological teachings. They refer to such devotional fraternity in books like Chesed le-Abraham, Sefer Ya’avetz and other works of Kabbalistic-moralistic literature,109 and it seems likely that R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham may have also imported a great deal of the amorous communion from

104 Ibid., letter 59, 225–230. 105 Joseph Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept of Communion with God and Men,” in his Studies in Eastern Jewish Mysticism and Hasidism, ed. David Goldstein (Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1997), 155–169 [in this current volume, 75-89–Ed.]. 106 Key epistles include Barnai, Igrot, letter 36, 155–158; ibid., letter 56, 212–216; and ibid., letter 59, 218–225. 107 Ibid., letter 59, 226–228. 108 Ibid., letter 56, 212–216. 109 Ibid., letter 36, 156.

164

C. Reader’s Guide

Rei’shit Chokhmah, a work already noted for its impact on Hasidism.110 The Tiberian fellowship may thus have understood itself as another link in the chain of mystical communities that sought to emulate the circle of the Zohar and later the Lurianic fellowship.111 But did R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham absorb any element of their doctrine of dibbuq chaverim from their teacher in Mezrich? The fact that we have relatively little reliable data regarding the social workings of the Maggid’s community other than Maimon’s very brief testimony makes this a very difficult question; our answer must be pieced together from teachings and anecdotes. The Tiberian letters suggest that the unique religious figure of the Maggid was the core of the Mezrich circle. In an instructive passage, one of the only descriptions in Hasidic literature what it was like to study with R. Dov Ber, R. Abraham of Kalisk claims that the community of disciples would study together and await the moment when the master would come deliver a single eye-opening and illuminating reading of a text.112 This testament leaves room for a circle of scholars, devoted to one another, but clearly situates R. Dov Ber at the helm of the group. The Maggid invokes the rabbinic teaching of “all Israel are responsible for one another” [kol Yisra’el ‘arevim zeh ba-zeh], used in the Tiberian letters to describe the sublime interconnectivity of the sacral fellowship, in reference to the unique descent of the tzaddiq into the realms of darkness and corporeality, as well as his subsequent return.113 Like other early Hasidic masters, the Maggid’s conception of the tzaddiq as an idealized mystic draws upon a range of earlier typologies, including biblical models like the priest, prophet, and the king, as well as the official institution of the rav (“rabbi”) and kabbalistic conceptions of spiritual 110 See Rei’shit Chokhmah, in particular, the section entitled Sha‘ar ha-Ahavah; and Bracha Sack, “The Influence of Reshit Hokhmah on the Teachings of the Maggid of Mezhirech,” in Hasidism Reappraised, ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert (London: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1997), 251–257. See also Barnai, Igrot, letter 17, 90. 111 The extended quotation from the Zohar (II:190b) used in support of dibbuq chaverim suggests that the Tiberian masters were drawing on the medieval kabbalistic circle as a model for their own devotional community; see Barnai, Igrot, letter 66, 247–248. 112 Ibid., letter 65, 244. 113 See Or Torah ha-Shalem (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 2011), no. 248, 314–318.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

165

teacher.114 Yet nowhere does he explicitly portray the tzaddiq as the leader of a community, nor do we find much in the way of the religious value of friendship.115 Several traditions from the Maggid which emphasis the importance of solitary completion, suggesting that R. Dov Ber was possessed of an introspective mystical soul, one whose inward spiritual journey led into the heart of human consciousness.116 Yet, as noted above, the picture may not be so simple. Solomon Maimon’s visit to the Maggid shows that the Mezrich center was a communal institution. A wide variety of students and occasional guests gathered together for the sacred repast, singing together and enjoying the spiritual company. We do not know how long each of his students tarried in Mezrich. It is likely that most visits were short, and thus the community of scholars around the Maggid—if we can speak of such a thing—would have changed frequently. But perhaps an ethos of convivial spiritual fraternity developed across the years, at least among an inner circle or veteran community. Echoes of such appear in the Maggid’s own teachings. For example, we read: “Balaam raised his eyes and saw Israel encamped by tribes and the spirit of God came upon him” [Numbers 24:2]. Our rabbis taught that Balaam saw that the openings of Israel’s tents were directed away from each other [a sign of modesty] and said, “these people are worthy of having shekhinah rest upon them” [bBava Batra 60a]. This is relevant to a group of scholars who sit around one table. They all offer teachings about a particular verse or rabbinic statement, one explains the verse one way and another explains it differently. If, Heaven forbid, they are in competition with each other, each claiming: 114 Arthur Green, “Typologies of Leadership and the Hasidic Zaddiq,” in Jewish Spirituality, vol. 2: From the Sixteenth-Century Revival to the Present, ed. Arthur Green (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 127–156; idem, “The Zaddiq as Axis Mundi,” 327–347. 115 Mayse, “Beyond the Letters,” 16–18. 116 See Keter Shem Tov, no. 216b, 123; Liqqutim Yekarim (Jerusalem, 1981), no. 175, fol. 56a–b; ibid., no. 13, 3a; Tzava’at ha-RiVaSH, no. 63, 26. See Haviva Pedaya, “The Ba‘al Shem Tov, R. Jacob Joseph of Polonnoye, and the Maggid of Mezrich: Outlines for a Religious Typology” [Heb.], Da‘at 45 (2000): 25–73; idem, “Two Types of Ecstatic Experience in Hasidism” [Heb.] Da‘at 55 (2005): 73–108; Mayse, “Beyond the Letters,” 215–245, 268–278, 403–421, and 533–544.

166

C. Reader’s Guide

“my explanation is better than the others”—woe to them, it is better they had never been born. But if their sole intention is to develop and enhance Torah, they are very fortunate. The “openings” Balaam saw were their mouths, as in the verse: “guard the openings of your mouth” [Micah 7:5]. He saw that their “openings” were not directed towards each other, that they had no intention to oppose each other. Rather each person offered a teaching and explanation only for the sake of Heaven. Such people, he said, are worthy of having shekhinah rest upon them.117

The tzaddiq, the preacher and master of the community, sits at the honored place at the head of the table, but around him a coterie of elite students has gathered. Scholarly creativity in a close-knit intellectual environment can lead to competition. Although this homily is alert to the benefits a challenging relationship with one’s fellow scholars that is nonetheless mutually amiable and supportive, it may be read as representative of the Maggid’s attempt to foster a group of disciples who valued creativity and were able to develop their own understanding of the spiritual path, but who did not compete with or undercut one another. R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham may well have absorbed the spirit of mutual respect and conviviality described in the teaching above, translating them into a new social context as the loving interconnectivity of the Tiberian community: Each person should see to it that he has a regular practice of dibbuq chaverim that he knows well, who are trusted and committed to the truth alone. These companions should share in your yearning to loosen the fetters of evil—that is, the desires of hypocrisy and falsehood. One should converse with such friends daily for around half an hour, to enable a critique of one’s own misguided qualities [middotav ha-ra‘ot], in sharing with your friend, and so likewise a corresponding critique from your friend. As one becomes habituated to this [practice of this spiritual companionship and critique], no member of this group will be embarrassed when rebuked for some misguided quality. He will admit the

117 Or Torah, no. 144, 196; translated in Arthur Green, Speaking Torah: Spiritual Teachings from Around the Maggid’s Table (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2013), vol. 2, 54–55.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

167

truth, allowing the accrued layers of falsehood to fall away and the spark of truth to shine forth.118

The loving bond that of the spiritual communitas also transforms its membership into a living devotional text, the exegesis of which leads to spiritual self-discovery for all members: It is explained many times in the Zohar that each commandment includes something of all the others.119 It is the same with each letter of our holy Torah: it includes all the letters of the Torah. It is known that the roots of the vitality of all Israel are the letters of Torah—[they are] the vitality that fills all Israel, and their vitality is shared as that of each individual sparks within the others. Perhaps this is the meaning, “all Israel are responsible [‘arevin] for one another”—their lights and vitality are mixed up [me‘uravim] with one another as a single being. This is why we are firmly commanded “to love your fellow as yourself ” [Leviticus 19:18]— truly! . . . No thought about a certain character trait [middah] can happen without the letters.120 Therefore a fool who walks about amidst the plague of darkness, due to jealousy, lust, or honor-seeking, the opposites of the attributes of law, awe, and so forth, cannot see the letters of his own light and vitality in his friend.  .  .  . The essence of the matter is thus: seeing another’s lesser qualities really means seeing your own letters refracted back toward you [in that same way].121

The association of Israel with the sacred text is an ancient Kabbalistic trope.122 All members of the community are filled with holy letters, but this linguistic energy coursing through the individual is revealed only in the context of communion with all others. And the opposite is true as well, for one who focuses upon the iniquities and shortcomings of 118 Barnai, Igrot, letter 17, 91. 119 See Zohar III:124a. 120 See Mayse, “Beyond the Letters,” 204–206. 121 Barnai, Igrot, letter 59, 227–228. 122 Gershom Scholem, “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism,” in his On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, trans. Ralph Manheim (New York: Schocken Books, 1996), 32–86; Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 99–119; Elliot R.  Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination (New York: Fordham University Press, 2005), 245.

168

C. Reader’s Guide

others—thus severing his bond to the community—will find that his own sacred vitality is expressed in the most untoward and debased manner. The orality of Hasidism comes to the fore once again in the practice of dibbuq chaverim. This fellowship leads to the study of Torah and impassioned prayer, but R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham refer to the conversations shared in dibbuq chaverim. as a method for attaining chokhmah. This is the reservoir of ineffable inspiration and divine wisdom toward which all language must gesture: [Arriving at the rung of chokhmah] is possible through speaking to one’s fellow [with spiritual attunement], sharing the entire contents of one’s heart, the counsel of the [Evil] Inclination within him. The spoken word itself can effect redemption; from there the stranglehold of the Inclination is loosened. . . . One must connect to one’s fellow by conjoining souls, as if they were a single being, attuned companions hearkening to the voice of God, each assisting the other and strengthening to make peace.123

Each person’s speech has the capacity to illuminate others. Passages such as this highlight not the sacral quality of the rebbe’s sermon or prayers, but rather the language of all members of the devotional community. Through talking, unburdening their own spiritual troubles, they achieve freedom from their base instincts. This calls to mind power the practices of confession in some early Hasidic circles.124 Such confessional rituals, however, were taken with very few exceptions before the tzaddiq himself, as a part of the initiation into the circle or as an ongoing part of one’s membership. Here the power of the living word spoken between two loving friends of similar spiritual ranks—that is, outside of the rigid hierarchy—has the power to effect miracles. It is tempting to read the Tiberian notion of dibbuq chaverim as an effort to establish a rather democratic, even egalitarian spiritual ethos. To some degree, this thrust is certainly present. But R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk saw himself as occupying a unique place in the Tiberian Hasidic fellowship, just as he had in the Eastern European community from which they emigrated. Many passages throughout these epistles describe 123 Barnai, Igrot, letter 36, 156. 124 Ada Rapaport Albert, “Confession in the Circle of R. Nachman of Braslav,” Bulletin of the Institute of Jewish Studies 1 (1973): 65–96.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

169

the singular power of the religious teacher, who stands at the center of the fellowship and through whom inspiration flows into all the students: This is the true way I received from holy teachers. With inspiration of the Holy Spirit they sacrificed themselves completely to enkindle the hearts of the Israelites, connecting and uniting them in a single bond of unity, so that they would be illuminated with the overwhelming awe of God and united in their dedication, for through the sages’ faith [emunat chakhamim] they achieve everlasting life. [They sought] to bring them into the covenant of faith [berit emunah], and, as such, faith takes root in the heart, “my soul’s redemption draws near” [Psalms 69:19]125.126

Spiritual illumination comes from being in the presence of such a leader. To stand near a master is to know the meaning of emunah, to have one’s vision of the world transformed through contact with a sacred personality. Yet the author’s subtle accent upon the personal experience of each individual is quite telling. Every soul must undergo its own moment of redemption, a process that is facilitated by the tzaddiq but one that is not experienced by proxy. R. Abraham of Kalisk describes the tzaddiq as integrating the souls of all Israel, uplifting and transforming them through his own spiritual work.127 But it is not a one-sided dynamic by any means, for the tzaddiq is also a dynamic individual who rises and falls in order to help others and in search of religious inspiration. The community, it seems, are brought along on this journey and play an integral role of their own: It is known that the blessed Holy One created the world by means of the Torah; all the worlds were created through the letters of Torah. Both the community of Israel and the individual person receive their vitality from the Torah, All the events of their lives, changing times in spiritual and physical planes, their very being and vitality . . . comes from the Torah. Now because the tzaddiq is connected to the community of Israel, he must descend from his level, going from level to level, his light

125 This verse is incorporated into the liturgical poem Lekha Dodi. 126 Barnai, Igrot, letter 77, 281. 127 Cf. Chesed le-Abraham [2013], Chayyei Sarah, 108–109, where tzaddiq unites the worlds, journeying beyond time and above the middot in order to ensure a flow of blessing and divine compassion.

170

C. Reader’s Guide

becoming diminished as he descends to the point and level of those who are “empty.” . . . With this arousal from below, as the tzaddiq senses his own inadequacy on this level, he is strengthened and arouses himself greatly, with the help of God . . . and the level of his light increases incrementally, until he ascends to God’s mountain called “that world,” meaning a realm beyond understanding. Renewal comes to the “words of Torah”—to the souls of Israel, whose essential being and vitality comes from the worlds and letters of Torah. . . . In truth, it is exceedingly difficult for the tzaddiq to disconnect himself from the Life of all life, from the supernal light, and to descend to the lowest level. But this is the desire and delight of the blessed Holy One! . . . To be just for oneself is ultimately insufficient. A single individual [that is, even one of extraordinary spiritual capabilities] has a limited capacity to receive and withstand divine light, les he become overwhelmed and obliterated by its intensity. But if one is a greater vessel, [made so by] the community of Israel, he can receive and withstand the most sublime lights; his capacity to withstand is beyond all measure because he is connected and absorbed within them.128

The letters then refers to the tale in the book of Kings in which the prophet Elisha tells the woman in need of a miracle that she must go out and collect empty vessels. This, says R. Abraham, means that the tzaddiq who desires to ascend to the greatest heights can only do so by collecting the people in his community. The image of oil flowing into ready vessels is therefore twofold: the tzaddiq’s spiritual energy illuminate the souls of the people in the community, but it is only through his connection to them that his own wells of wisdom and inspiration is filled. Surely it is no coincidence that a similar image is found in homilies of many of the Maggid’s students, invoking not the tale of Elisha but about the oil used in the Menorah. These texts point toward a mutuality of the tzaddiq and his disciples in which both give to one another. For example, we read:

128 Barnai, Igrot, letter 58, 222–224.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

171

The leaders of Israel, those who guide and teach the people God’s ways and Torah, receive even more from those they teach. [“I learned much from my teachers, more from my compatriots,] but from my students most of all” [bTa‘anit 7a]. In the outflow of mind and awareness that comes from God, they receive more so that they can pass the flow on to others. Proof of this is found in the fact that all the years that Israel were in the wilderness because of the sin of the spies, divine speech stayed away from Moses [because he was not prophesying to Israel]. This is [the meaning of the verse] “And you, tetzaveh [“command”] the Children of Israel.” The word may be derived from tzavta [“togetherness”]. Join yourself to the Children of Israel, to teach them and lead them. “They will bring you pure olive oil”—it is they who will cause that pure flow of wisdom and Torah to come upon you.129

Here the oil represents the new measure of wisdom and inspiration that is gifted upon the tzaddiq—not the disciples—because of his intimate connection to his listeners and students. One of the Maggid’s sermons employs the image of olive oil in describing the personal experience of the devoted worshiper, whose inner journey leads to the preconscious mind beyond language.130 A second sermon from R. Dov Ber, however, provides a more communal vision of the spiritual life: [“And you, enjoin the Children of Israel that they bring you pure olive oil.  .  .” (Exodus 27:20)]. “Command” [tetzaveh] comes from word for connection [tzavta] and bond [chibbur]. Connect them to you, each and every one, and in joining together they will attain and grasp the supernal wisdom, which is called “oil.” They will understand the secrets of the Torah, which was given by means of the twenty-two letters. This is the meaning of “[enjoin] the Children of Israel”—all of the letters [of the Hebrew alphabet] from alef to tav.131

Rather than the mutuality of the teacher also receiving from the student, here we see that Maggid focusing on the power of the spiritual educator 129 Orah le-Chayyim (Jerusalem: 1970), Tetzaveh, 188–189; translated in Green, Speaking Torah, vol. 1, 223–224. 130 See Or Torah, Tetzaveh, no. 102, 142–143. 131 Ibid., no. 103, 143.

172

C. Reader’s Guide

to illuminate the hearts and minds of his followers. The supernal wisdom begins to flow into them, says R. Dov Ber, as they become connected to the master. Without this, they cannot hope to understand the deepest spiritual matters on their own. By contrast, this same image appears in the teaching of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, who underscores humility and the power of the commandments to bring about the illumination of the infinite divine even within the physical cosmos.132 R.  Shne’ur Zalman concentrates on the images of Moses, the lawgiver and Aharon, the one who lights the oil in the menorah, clearly a representation of the tzaddiq: “Aharon has the power to uplift the soul who outside of the holy realm [mi-hutz le-parokhet], so that the endless love [of the Divine] is revealed within it”.133 Like a bridesmaid of a groomsman at wedding, Aharon enables the sacred wedding between the soul and God by escorting the worshiper into the highest—or deepest—realms of being. R. Shne’ur Zalman notes, however, that Aharon’s power to uplift the community and enkindle their hearts derives from the fact they are all studying Torah assiduously and with great devotion. What a fitting exegesis this is for a spiritual system like that of R. Shne’ur Zalman, who created a clear, intractable distinction between the tzaddiq and the community and yet demanded constant study from his chasidim. R. Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham could easily have developed a tzaddiq-centered model of dibbuq chaverim, one in which the horizontal connections between fellow worshipers are joined through the hub of the tzaddiq. Indeed, the image of a single leader who stands at the heart of the devotional community is present in some of their letters. But the model favored by the Tiberian masters, and especially R. Abraham, seems to be primarily one in which compatriots and fellow travelers learn from one another and cleave to each other, thus allowing for a dynamic and creative synergy of spiritual vitality throughout the community. Tiberian descriptions of the tzaddiq, reinforced by teachings in Peri ha-Aretz and Chesed le-Abraham as well as theses epistles, refer to an individual in constant spiritual motion. Rather than a perfect and unchanging religious leader, the Tiberian tzaddiq is constantly rising and falling, moving 132 See Torah Or, Tetzaveh, 81a–82a; and cf. the addendum in ibid., 110a–11a. 133 Ibid., 81b.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

173

forward and backward in his own spiritual journey and quest to stand in the divine Presence. Just as opposition is necessary for growth, so are the natural rises and falls of one’s religious journey crucial for allowing everyone—even the tzaddiq—to ascend to a new rung.134 The concept of a dynamic tzaddiq who rises and falls, and the horizontal connection to other worshipers, seem logically incompatible with a rigid notion of the tzaddiq presented in the opening chapter of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady’s Sefer shel Beinonim.135 His tzaddiqim are the spiritual elites, aspects or even reincarnations of Moses reborn throughout Jewish history, including the Hasidic leaders of R. Shne’ur Zalman’s own day. But the flawless tzaddiqim are not the intended audience of Sefer shel Beinonim, which is directed toward individuals for whom much of their spiritual work is yet undone. R. Shne’ur Zalman sought to inspire these readers to rise above their natural state as one of the categories of “wicked” people, and to reach the station of the “intermediate person.” This victory, though difficult, is theoretically available to all. The choice to begin Tanya with this hierarchy thus pushes his readers to abandon any false aspirations of becoming a tzaddiq, allowing R. Shne’ur Zalman’s students to take up the inner work necessary and appropriate for their true rung and thereby strive to become a beinoni. But R. Shne’ur Zalman’s is a rather inflexible model of the tzaddiq, who is portrayed as qualitatively different from all other human beings. His fate is determined by his conception and birth, and he will reach a spiritual level beyond the reach of even the most hard-working beinoni. R. Shne’ur Zalman suggests that groups assemble to study Tanya even when they cannot visit the tzaddiq and absorb to his public words or private advice. But R. Shne’ur Zalman’s focus remains on the unique book authored by the charismatic leader; the spiritual vitality rebbe—manifest also in his words—is the fulcrum of the community, not the energy generated by the fellowship’s devotional interconnectivity.136 134 See Barnai, Igrot, letter 58, 218–225. Cf. ibid., letter 24, 117–124. 135 It is worth noting that the small treatise entitled Chinukh Qatan, which seems to have been authored before the first part of Liqqutei Amarim—Tanya, offers a more dynamic picture of the tzaddiq in perpetual motion. 136 See the letter printed in Liqqutei Amarim—Tanya, Iggeret ha-Qodesh, no. 22, 137b–138a, where the emphasis is on love for all Jews rather than the members of a specific intense religious fellowship.

174

C. Reader’s Guide

Orality and Authority The preference for oral instruction found in early Hasidic sources is tightly bound up with the notion spiritual discipleship and, as the decades unfolded, with the question of the authority and stewardship of the Maggid’s spiritual legacy. In a 1787 letter R. Menachem Mendel outlines the process through which teachings are communicated from a master to a disciple, doing so in terms clearly inherited from the Maggid. The teacher, says R. Menachem Mendel, bequeaths a measure of his wisdom [chokhmah] to the student, who then is tasked with using his powers of disinterment [binah] to infer new meaning from the original packet of inspiration. But R.  Menachem Mendel departs from the Maggid in asserting that his wisdom can only be conveyed through faith, and through faith in one’s teacher [emunat chakhamim] in particular:137 The essence of expansive consciousness, the initial [flash of] wisdom, the faith, is received from the mouth of a teacher. This is the meaning of, “Torah is acquired through faith in one’s teachers.”138 . . . Emunah is the essence of unity, and therefore must be absorbed from a single teacher.139

R.  Menachem Mendel argues that a reservoir of wisdom can only be acquired from a single master. The pathways of intellectual fruition (called binah)—may involve the nurturing care of different masters. But the essential necessary for spiritual progress, called chovat ha-levavot by R.  Menachem Mendel, is accessible only to one who has studied directly—and in person—with a single master. The student’s faith and conviction in the words of his master, combined with his own spiritual practice and intuitive religious knowledge, allows him to mine the teacher’s words and recover the ineffable wisdom that they contain. The biographical details behind R.  Menachem Mendel’s insistence that a student apprentice himself to a single master become clear as

137 This seems to be a specifically Tiberian deployment of the rabbinic adage that does not appear in the homilies of the Maggid. Perhaps emunat chakhamim is absent from Maggid’s sermons because he was dealing mostly with the elites, whereas R. Menachem Mendel was dealing with a community of students. 138 mAvot 6:5. 139 Barnai, Igrot, letter 39, 165.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

175

the letter unfolds.140 He laments that after moving to the land of Israel, his disciples sought to find another master—or masters—to guide and to shepherd them. Building on the ethos of Kabbalah, R.  Menachem Mendel notes that multiplicity [ribui] is generally the result of sin and inadequacy of vision, then suggests that this holds true for spiritual discipleship: although a student may absorb tidbits from many great teachers, true spiritual practices, matters of the heart, wisdom conveyed through loving emunah can only happen in a setting of mutual obligation and commitment. R.  Menachem Mendel implores his followers to depend on one another, because all of his disciples received the, “teaching of truth and awe of [God’s] majesty from a single shepherd” [torat ha-emet ve-yir’at ha-romemmut].141 Glazer and Polen suggested that we might do well to identify this shepherd as the BeSh”T or the Maggid.142 This seems unlikely, however, given that R. Menachem Mendel’s letter is addressed to students who were unlikely to have had any direct interactions with either of these earlier figures. It seems more reasonable to assume that R.  Menachem Mendel was referring to himself and his own singular place of authority in the White Russian Hasidic community he had served as the central leader of his community, and he clearly touched the lives of his followers in powerful and transformative ways. Many of the subsequent passages of this letter are indeed autobiographical. R. Menachem Mendel refers to his enduring love for his community, his unquenchable thirst to continue instructing them in spiritual matters, and, of course, he underscores the intimate and unique connection that maintains with each and every one of his disciples even across the geographical distance. R.  Menachem Mendel’s claim is as follows: he gave birth to the community, tended it in its infancy, and remains their spiritual guide, and therefore a new leader cannot function in his stead. Furthermore, R.  Menachem Mendel was the living link (even if physically absent) binding his group of disciples to the spiritual legacy of the Maggid. He was firmly set against the idea of importing other spiritual leaders to 140 See ibid., letter 39, 165–166. 141 Ibid., letter 39, 166, building on bChagigah 3b. 142 Such was the suggestion made by Glazer and Polen in the translations distributed at the AJS seminar in 2016.

176

C. Reader’s Guide

guide his community and offer them advice. Shortly after the death of R. Menachem Mendel, R. Abraham of Kalisk asserts this: Behold, you know that you have heard [these teachings] from the holy mouth of our late teacher, may his memory be a blessing, a single pillar of the world, known as righteousness, and wholeness of truth [tzedeq shemo, shalom ha-emet]. For when a tzaddiq departs [from the world], he leaves an impression,143 and this impression is visible. . . .144

R. Menachem Mendel is gone, but his spiritual legacy and his connection to his followers are not eclipsed. He remains the founder at the head of the community, and his influence is still there. In a letter eventually published in the Tanya, R. Shne’ur Zalman offers his own take on this, explaining that the tzaddiq is even more present after his death. But R. Abraham then continues, suggesting in no uncertain terms that while R. Menachem Mendel’s legacy is still present, the mantle of leadership has passed to him: And Abraham stands before YHVH at the entrance to gateway to Heaven, to help his followers draw near to the Divine with a mighty and powerful arm. I assure you that you shall be able to gaze upon the pleasantness of God, which shall give you life. . . .145

This 1789 letter makes it clear that R.  Abraham has assumed, at least in his own eyes, the position of leader of the Tiberian fellowship and the Hasidic community of White Russia. Surely, R. Abraham was aware that a variety of Hasidic leaders were teaching and spreading out across Eastern Europe in the 1770s and 1780s, and perhaps he wanted to retain a sense of continuity, including theological flow as well as institutional and financial stability, in their community, according to their particular religious path. But a direct and rather public controversy broke out between R.  Abraham and R.  Shne’ur Zalman in the 1790s.146 There were seri143 See RaSh”I’s comments on Genesis 28:10, invoking Genesis Rabbah 68:6. 144 Barnai, Igrot, letter 50, 194. 145 Ibid. 146 See Immanuel Etkes’s evaluation of the conflict in Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady: The Origins of Chabad Hasidism, trans. Jeffrey M. Green (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2015), 208–258.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

177

ous economic factors in this conflict, but finances were not the only flashpoint. The two masters disagreed sharply over the proper mode of Hasidic leadership, differing also over the concept of the tzaddiq that underwrote the social hierarchy. R. Abraham and R. Shne’ur Zalman also opposed one another on the question of intellectual, cerebral contemplation versus focus on the middot as the gateway to religious service. A third ideational issue that divided them seems to have been was the question of popularizing Kabbalah, or better, the decision to spread the Hasidic ethos beyond the confines of a close-knit devotional fellowship composed of committed initiates. A close reading of the Tiberian letters shows that the protagonists in this debate root the disagreement in the correct understanding of the Maggid’s legacy. This is also true for R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, whose famous 1805 letter claimed that the Maggid had bitterly rebuked R. Abraham in 1772 for some particularly garish and outlandish behaviors.147 Some passages in these Tiberian epistles have R. Menachem Mendel welcoming—and endorsing—his students’ attachment to R.  Shne’ur Zalman, though perhaps some later missives reveal a sense of trepidation.148 R. Menachem Mendel exhorts his followers not to abandon love, awe and emunah as the fundaments of the religious life, suggesting that he may well have been concerned about the intellectually oriented mystical path and different leadership of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady. Many years later R. Abraham of Kalisk suggests that the R. Menachem Mendel was, “was already upset with the leadership style emerging from [the] vacuum he left behind in emigrating to Tiberias.”149 R. Abraham did not like R. Shne’ur Zalman’s leadership style [hanhagah ve-hadrakhah], saying that it was something “never seen or heard from our holy teachers.”150 R. Abraham says he learned a great deal from “his teacher” about the proper modes of leadership. 151 It is tempting to identify this figure as Maggid, but R.  Menachem Mendel seems the more fitting option. 147 See Iggerot Qodesh—Admor ha-Zaken, ha-Emtza‘i, ha-Tzemach Tzedeq (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1987), vol. 1, 125–126; and R.  Abraham of Kalisk’s reference in Barnai, Igrot, letter 68, 255–256. 148 See Barnai, Igrot, letter 39, 162–169. 149 Ibid., letter 76, 279. Cf. ibid., letter 64, 241. 150 Ibid., 278–279. 151 Ibid., letter 64, 238–242.

178

C. Reader’s Guide

R. Abraham of Kalisk describes this master as the one, “whom I served all my life and increased with the atmosphere of the Land of Israel.” R. Abraham was thus castigating R. Shne’ur Zalman for breaking ranks with the Maggid’s leadership style as manifest in the traditions and posture of the Vitebsker. R. Abraham’s rejection of R. Shne’ur Zalman’s approach to leadership reflects his commitment to dibbuq chaverim. In one of his letters R.  Abraham invokes a lengthy passage from the Zohar extolling the values of fraternal solidarity among fellow mystics. This description of dibbuq chaverim lifted from a medieval Kabbalistic work is, I believe, the longest sustained single quotation in these letters.152 R.  Abraham’s polemic is pointed against the overtly hierarchical model presented by R. Shne’ur Zalman. It is interesting to note that R. Abraham rebukes R. Shne’ur Zalman for being too much of a recluse, claiming that one cannot learn to be a leader when he is cut off and removed from his community—and all the more so from his fellow scholars.153 Such aloofness might give rise to unchecked pride, but it may also lead to a lack of empathy for and personal connection to the disciples. These key values for attaining dibbuq chaverim must be embodied by the master as well as the students. But R. Abraham is also worried that such disconnect may cause R. Shne’ur Zalman to reveal secretes in undue measure. Although R.  Abraham reverses himself in a latter epistle, claiming that, “R.  Shne’ur Zalman put his soul in the hands of his disciples by being altruistic in leading the community,” he remains deeply concerned that R. Shne’ur Zalman’s teachings will cause esoteric Kabbalistic knowledge to fall into the wrong hands. R. Abraham of Kalisk also resented the fact that R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady inducted his young son into the highest levels of the community.154 His discomfort suggests that dynastic inheritance was nowhere on the horizons of the Tiberian community, just as such inherited succession would have been unthinkable in the time of the Maggid. But R. Shne’ur Zalman’s concept of the tzaddiq and the rigid hierarchy of the spiritual master over his disciples suggests that it is no accident that his 152 Ibid., letter 66, 247–250. 153 Ibid., letter 64, 238–242. 154 Ibid., letter 64, 241.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

179

son begins to take over as leader of the community rather than his most eminent disciple—their struggle for power and the eventual choice of R. Shne’ur Zalman’s child is a watershed moment in the emergence of the dynastic system. The imbricated troubles of intellectualism and publicizing Kabbalah, both threatening to R. Abraham, cuts through the compendium of letters. Some epistles refer derisively to an outpouring of tzaddiqim who failed to serve their teachers and thus mistakenly share too much with their own disciples. Many of these same letters claims that intellectual contemplation, without the enlivening forces of emunah and yir’ah, leads to spiritual desiccation and aridity. Such unilateral concentration of the mind warps the devotional quest, leads to haughtiness, and a false sense of confidence in having unveiled the mystery: “For the one who has trust and awareness of divine presence in one’s life does not need to be distracted by such overthinking. God made us simple, but it is corporeality that motivates our intellectual analysis.”155 R. Abraham’s alternative is not blind and simple faith, of course, but contemplation of the work of the middot and mystical awareness cultivated through emunah rather than the intellective faculties of chokhmah, binah, and da‘at. R.  Abraham of Kalisk was convinced that most of his generation would miss the spiritual insights of the Maggid’s path if they were garbed in the recondite, even burdensome language of Lurianic Kabbalah: I find no relief, no solace, in the crown of the Torah being veiled in the sun’s sheath156—that the teachings of the Maggid of Mezrich, which are the words of the holy Ba‘al Shem Tov, are being garbed in the words of the holy AR”I [that is, R. Yitzchak Luria]. Although, without a doubt, all of these flow toward a single place [that is, all mystical teachings have the same goal], [we must separate] between the language of Torah and the language of the sages [that is, between distinct spiritual vocabularies] . . . choose naked language, and pathways of love and awe, of purifying the body so that the middot will be directed to God alone. . . I have seen what is written in Sefer shel Beinonim, and found little that will be useful

155 Ibid., letter 65, 245–266. 156 Cf. bNedarim 8b.

180

C. Reader’s Guide

in saving souls. . . . An over-abundance of oil [that is, wisdom] will cause the flame to be doused.157

The intricate theosophical system developed by Luria obscures more than it reveals, says R.  Abraham, when it becomes a weighty garment applied to the religious inspiration of Hasidism. Furthermore, such corporeal and mythic language is easily misunderstood, and in the hands of the masses it could lead to a highly corporeal and errant theology. R. Abraham felt that intellectualism needed the middot-oriented service of the heart, but he also seems to have balked at including the masses in the movement since so many individuals will doubtless fall short of the emotional rigor demanded by his path. They will also fail in the spiritual intimacy with one another. In this criticism R. Abraham is making a clever stab at R. Shne’ur Zalman’s formulation in Sha‘ar ha-Yichud ve-ha-Emunah.158 In that work R.  Shne’ur Zalman claims that enduring consciousness of God’s acosmic unity, even amid the physical world, is too overwhelming. But one day, suggests R. Shne’ur Zalman, the sun will be removed from its sheath and the wicked will be engulfed in its fire—that is, the full intensity of the Divine will be revealed, consuming all iniquity and multiplicity. R.  Abraham, however, has turned this image into a bitter polemic: R. Shne’ur Zalman saturated his teachings with the language of Lurianic Kabbalah, removing the tempering devotional lens Hasidism and thus hopelessly overwhelming his listeners and readers. It is noteworthy that throughout this debate R. Abraham of Kalisk refers to his knowledge of the Maggid’s teachings and the customs of the inner circle of the Mezrich disciples. But he makes no mention of written teachings or manuscripts in his possession as a source of authority, though it is certainly possible that he could have had them.159 In the epis157 Barnai, Hasidic Letters, letter 64, 239–240. 158 See Liqqutei Amarim—Tanya, Sha‘ar ha-Yichud ve-ha-Emunah, ch. 4, 78b–79b. 159 Liqqutei Amarim [1911], a collection of teachings primarily from the Maggid, was erroneously published in the name of R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk; see Gries, Sefer, Sofer, ve-Sippur be-Rei’shit ha-Chasidut (1991–1992 [5752]), 111–112n.11, 118n.83. If this manuscript indeed came from Safed, a claim made on the title page that we have no reason to suspect, then the work may represent a bundle of the Maggid’s teachings taken by R. Menachem Mendel when he moved to Israel in the 1777.

The Legacy of the Maggid and the Hasidic Community in the Land of Israel

181

tolary war over fidelity, intimacy and the memory of the Maggid’s legacy, oral traditions were the unimpeachable standard of proof: [R. Ele‘ezar of Disne]160 praises himself before the eyes of others, saying that he knows the secrets of Torah and its inner meaning, having received them from you [R.  Shne’ur Zalman], from our leader [R.  Menachem Mendel] and from the Ba‘al Shem Tov. . . .161

Someone else then tells him, how can this possibly be that illustrious leaders would pass on secrets of the Torah [sodot ha-Torah] to a person filled with terrible middot. But the letter continues: [R. Ele‘ezar of Disne] seems to have been sent as a spy, to argue with me and test to see if I have knowledge of certain teaching of R. Abraham the pious [the son of the Maggid]162 about which you’ve told him. But I see that he has no knowledge or understanding, having forgotten the ways of the world [that is, all these traditions]. . . . I am astounded that you treat me so, as if I had never seen the light of the great luminaires [that is, the Maggid and R. Menachem Mendel] and everything was new to me. You know full well that nothing has been hidden from me, and that every word that I heard from our teacher [R. Menachem Mendel] and the holy one [the Maggid]163 is illuminated before me with total clarity, shining like a gem on the day it was given. Their teachings are in my kishkes [be-tokh me‘ai], growing increasingly sanctified because of the holiness of the land, which is fitting to receive a tremendous holiness.164

160 A follower of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady who moved to the Holy Land. 161 Barnai, Igrot, letter 68, 256–257. 162 R. Abraham (d. 1776) was called ha-Malakh, or “the Angel” due to his otherworldly ascetic piety. See Tsippi Kauffman, “Typology of the Tzaddiq in the Teachings of R.  Abraham the Angel” [Heb.], Kabbalah 33 (2015): 239–272; and Avinoam J. Stillman, “Transcendent God, Immanent Kabbalah: A Prolegomenon to the Hasidic Teachings of R.  Abraham ha-Malakh,” in Be-Ron Yahad: Studies in Jewish Law and Theology in Honor of Nehemia Polen, ed. Ariel Evan Mayse and Arthur Green (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2019). 163 This may alternatively be taken as a reference to the Maggid’s son, purveyor of his father’s knowledge. 164 Barnai, Igrot, letter 58, 257–258.

182

C. Reader’s Guide

R. Abraham’s claim to authority based on close service of the Maggid and authentic—that is, oral—traditions is mirrored in a follow-up letter from 1806: While he [R.  Shne’ur Zalman] claims that I am not properly ordained to teach our followers in this true path, but I have taken strength. . . for a righteous person must hold fast, with a tight bond, to the root point of truth [shoresh nequdah ha-emet] that I have received from our holy teachers. . . . I have witnessed the rise of contentiousness and disputatious factionalism in our lands, as everyone has split into groups . . . knowing that all this stems from a lack of leadership and directing the people in paths and pathways that we have never seen and never heard from the great tzaddiqim, the foundations of the world with an unshakable foundation, from the holy luminary, the divine R., the BeSh”T, and his great and holy and famous disciples, and in particular the holy teacher the Maggid of Mezrich. I served him [the Maggid] for a long time, keeping my eyes and heart focused with attention on all manners of his sacred comportment. All of his holy words were like flames of the coals, kindling the fires of the human heart with its point of truth, love and awe.165

In the disputation between R.  Abraham and R.  Shne’ur Zalman, the spirit of polysemy and even theological diversity—clearly a part of the Maggid’s path—has entirely disappeared. In the face of competition from such a talented young scholar, R. Abraham staked his claim as the sole inheritor of the Maggid’s legacy. And, to a significant degree, R. Shne’ur Zalman returned the favor.

165 Ibid., letter 76, 278.

Theology, Succession, and Social Structure in the Dispute between R. Abraham Kalisker and R. Shne’ur Zalman Nehemia Polen (Hebrew College, Boston) and David Maayan (Boston College, Boston)

Recent scholarship has tended to present the relationship and eventual dispute between R. Abraham Kalisker and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady in terms framed by the latter, ultimately taking the side of R.  Shne’ur Zalman. In the process, the voice of R. Abraham’s approach to Hasidic life and teaching is at risk of becoming muted or lost. His famous 1797 letter critical of R. Shne’ur Zalman’s just-published Tanya1 is interpreted in purely negative terms, that is, R. Abraham’s fundamental objection is taken to be that the book reveals too much (particularly of Kabbalistic 1

Throughout this essay, we will refer to this work with the popular title Tanya, although this was not its original title. The first edition of Liqqutei Amarim, containing versions of what would eventually become the first two sections of the work, was published in Slavuta in December 1796. The name Tanya already accompanied the earlier name of the title page of the second 1798 edition printed in Zolkiev. Yehoshua Mondshine, Torat ChaBa”D, Bibliografiah: Liqqutei Amarim (Kfar ChaBa”D: Kehot Publishing House, 1982).

184

C. Reader’s Guide

secrets). This reading appears to have a solid basis in the text of the letter. Yet, we should note also how conveniently it fits the pattern of a prominent aspect of internal ChaBa”D discourse about its own history, which sees its founder as battling forces which oppose the revelation and spread of Hasidic teachings. Most famously, R. Shne’ur Zalman’s arrest and subsequent release from imprisonment in the fall of 1798 was seen as a case of Hasidism itself being put on trial—and his release on the nineteenth of Kislev is celebrated as a festival of redemption and the vindication of “the Hasidic manner of serving God” until today by ChaBa”D chasidim.2 Of course, there is no one Hasidic manner of worship, or of anything else. When R.  Abraham warned that the Tanya risks being an example of “an abundance of oil which can extinguish a flame,” readers should ask themselves not only what the Kalisker wished to “subtract” from R.  Shne’ur Zalman’s approach, but also how he sought to kindle and nurture the flame in himself and his followers. Rather than simply a quantitative question about how much one should reveal, the heart of the issue is the question of what forms of revelation will, in fact, lead to an increasing illumination as opposed to extinguishing the light of true understanding and devotional awareness. This essay seeks to articulate aspects of R. Abraham’s approach to Hasidism by highlighting passages from his teachings and letters. Many of these predate his explicit critique of R. Shne’ur Zalman. This will enable us to see the 1797 critique as, in large part, an organic development in light of the alternative constructive approach to Hasidic life and pedagogy which he had articulated earlier. This approach contrasts with the way that historian Immanuel Etkes covers the dispute in his valuable study Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady: The Origins of Chabad Hasidism. Etkes emphasizes that R.  Abraham waited until 1797 before criticizing R.  Shne’ur Zalman, although “he knew about Shne’ur Zalman’s path before then,” and that this suggests that the Kalisker’s critique was driven by personal motives (such as envy). Some of the theological and ethical concerns that he explicitly raises are described as R.  Abraham’s “wrapping the barbs of criticism in a cloak of moral self-righteousness,” which only increased Shne’ur Zalman’s ire 2 See Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, 204–207. The Hebrew version of Etkes’s study, Ba‘al ha-Tanya (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2011–2012 [5772]) contains some additional material that was not translated in the English edition.

Theology, Succession, and Social Structure

185

upon encountering its contents.3 Etkes writes: “Rabbi Abraham claimed that he had been aware of the flaws in Shneur Zalman’s approach years before the controversy broke out, that he had written to Shneur Zalman several times on the matter symbolized by the verse, ‘the righteous man will live in his faith’ [Habakkuk 2:4], and that Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk had shared his concern.”4 Etkes disputes this version of events, stating that “in the many letters that R.  Menachem Mendel and R. Abraham had sent to the chasidim for years, there was no hint of dissatisfaction with Shne’ur Zalman’s methods.”5 It is true that explicit critique of R. Shne’ur Zalman in the form that it takes in the 1797 letter is not to be found in these earlier letters. However, R. Abraham does indeed express his concerns about emerging forms of Hasidism and spiritual instruction that he considers harmful. This is not to say that these statements should be understood as “really” veiled criticisms of R. Shne’ur Zalman’s approach, certainly not in any reductionist sense. Rather, they provide us a window into the Kalisker’s personal vision of Hasidic life and the proper approach to Torah study and worship. In articulating his vision, R. Abraham was also pushing back against tendencies that were developing within R. Shne’ur Zalman’s thought and teaching, and it is unsurprising that when the Tanya finally appeared in print, R. Abraham felt the need to object to aspects of it, which he saw as manifestations of those tendencies pushed to an extreme. While some have characterized R. Abraham’s critique as anti-intellectual,6 and thus objecting to “the very clarity . . . of R. Shne’ur Zalman’s book,”7 it is truer to say that his positive vision is one of integration, rather than emotionalism. His objection is not to intellectual activity, per se, and certainly not to contemplation, but rather to intellectual acrobatics which are detached 3 Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, 213. 4 Ibid., 257. 5 Ibid. 6 See Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, 215, who contrasts R.  Shne’ur Zalman’s “demand for intellectual contemplation of the greatness of God in the course of prayer” with R.  Abraham’s “fostering of yir’a [awe], simple faith, and emunat chakhamim [faith in the Sages].” Although Etkes goes on to refer to the Kalisker’s concern about the danger of the intellect “without the prior foundation of awe,” thus opening the possibility of a positive use of the intellect build upon such a foundation, the implication that “simple faith” is in itself non-intellectual for R. Abraham will be questioned further on in this essay. 7 Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 51.

186

C. Reader’s Guide

from both the realm of ethical action and the fuller inner world of the individual: ‫וכבר ארז״ל [אמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה] ״כל שחכמתו מרובה ממעשיו [אין חכמתו‬ ‫ בדוק ומנוסה הוא שריבוי החכמה על המעשה‬,‫״ לדעתי מי שהריח ביראת ד׳‬.]‫מתקיימת‬ ‫ שיתן עינו ולבו לדבר אחד מדברי אלהים חיים אשר ישמע‬,‫ ועיקר ושורש הכל‬. . . .‫פוגם‬ ‫ויחזקהו במסמרים שיהי׳ חקוק וחפור בלבו כמו באר מים חיים ונוזלים ונובעים מעצמם‬ ‫ וזהו מאמר רז״ל במופלא ממך—שהוא מופלא ממך בעצמך שאינו נוסד‬. . . .‫מדבר הנ״ל‬ 8 .‫ אל תדרוש‬,‫בלבך רק מהשמיעה‬. Our sages, of blessed memory, have already said, “For anyone whose wisdom is greater than his deeds, [his wisdom will not endure].”9 In my view, [for] anyone who is sensitive to [lit. “who has smelled”] the fear of God, it is tested and proven that the abundance of wisdom over deed brings harm. . . . The essence and root of all is that one should fix his eyes and his heart upon one word from those words of the living God which he hears. Let him reinforce it with nails, so that it will be engraved and “dug into” his heart like a well of living water, flowing and gushing forth of itself from this word. . . . And this is the saying of our sages, of blessed memory: “[Do not expound upon] that which is too wonderous from you”10—that which is too wonderous from you, within yourself, for it is not established in your own heart but only from hearing—do not expound upon it.11

This comes from a letter which R. Abraham addressed to the chasidim in 1786, just over a decade before the critical letter responding to the publication of the Tanya.12 He is emphatic about the need to integrate Torah wisdom, the “words of the living God.” The sages have already warned us about the possibility of an overabundance of wisdom, which R. Abraham defines as that which is not deeply internalized. Although the Mishnah only explicitly discusses the dangers of one whose wisdom 8 Abraham Kalisker, letter appended to that of R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, 1786, printed in Hilman, Igrot, 131–132. 9 Pirkei Avot 3:9; and cf. 3:17. 10 bChagigah 13a. 11 All translations from the letters are our own. Note that ‘al tidrosh could also be rendered “do not seek it,” but we have translated here to accord with the Kalisker’s deployment of the text. 12 See note 7 above. As was often the case during the lifetime of Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, R. Abraham appended his letter to that of his esteemed colleague.

Theology, Succession, and Social Structure

187

exceeds their deeds, R. Abraham is not simply emphasizing the need for ethical behavior and fulfillment of the commandments, though of course these are implicitly present in this passage. Rather, he poetically describes a demanding program of contemplative integration of Torah teachings, piece by piece, patiently being planted by each individual in the depths of his heart. Note the emphasis on the irreducible individuality of this process for each person—when the Talmud refers to that which is “beyond you” [mufla mimekha], it does not refer to that which is beyond human comprehension in general, but that which is beyond each person as a specific individual. For R.  Abraham here, spiritual growth must come out of one’s own experience and realization if it is to be genuine to that person. If it attempts to take the form of merely hearing, and parroting, the ideas of another, it will be beyond that person. The realization must come from working consistently, slowly, on one thought, deeply ingraining it into the self. R. Abraham states at the opening of this letter that he is concerned about the chasidim placing too much emphasis on hearing new teachings and reading many books full of “words of the living God.” He warns them of the dangers of an abundance of teachings, which fill the mind and the lips but fail to take root and flow forth from the depths of the self. What particular path leading to an excess of unintegrated wisdom [chokhmah] did the author have in mind? Ya‘aqov Barnai writes that he is “hinting at the teachings of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady,” adding that “R. Abraham of Kalisk is disputing with him already here.”13 This seems correct. If so, this is one example of the comments R. Abraham would later claim had been in the letters from him (and the Vitebsker), responding to the perceived flaws, or at least potential dangers, in the innovative teachings of R.  Shne’ur Zalman.14 To be clear, in this letter the Kalisker goes on to praise the “precious light” of R. Shne’ur Zalman; he urges the chasidim in White Russia to consult with him, and to learn the way of yir’at ha-Shem (fear and awe of God) from him. Barnai himself notes that the relations

13 Barnai, Igrot, 132n.15. 14 R.  Shne’ur Zalman’s sermons were in fact frequently referred to, even during his lifetime, by the title “Words of the Living God” (divrei elohim chayyim). Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, 50. It is not certain, however, that this terminology was already prevalent and intentionally alluded to by R. Abraham here.

188

C. Reader’s Guide

between the two Hasidic masters is apparently still one of mutual respect at this time.15 R.  Abraham’s concern about an “overabundance” of unintegrated teachings foreshadows, and illuminates, his later reaction to the Tanya: “I do not consider it very useful for helping people. . . . For this kind of person, it is sufficient to have one spark, which will have many meanings for him—this is the path of Torah. Too much oil in the lamp could, heaven forfend, cause the flame to be extinguished.”16 To summarize the critique here as simply an accusation that R.  Shne’ur Zalman is “revealing too much” is to miss the richness of R. Abraham’s perspective. R. Abraham is concerned about teachings whose form overwhelms and suppresses the fire within each individual chasid, eliminating the sparks of multiple meanings, which, he emphatically notes, is essential to “the path of Torah.” To return to the metaphor from the 1786 letter, he wants the wellspring of individual, integrated insights to be able to flow forth from each one’s patient contemplation. Rather than the suppression of “revelations,” his ultimate concern is preserving the possibility of those revelations that thus emerge from the “well of living water” within each heart whose inner flame has not been extinguished.17 It is important to specify the unique aspect of the Tanya that inspired R. Abraham’s criticism here. After all, could not chasidim still follow his own advice with R. Shne’ur Zalman’s book as well, savoring slowly and deeply ingraining individual pieces of Torah wisdom to be found upon its pages? The truth is that the Tanya is a book “unparalleled in the history of Hasidism, especially at its inception,” as Etkes writes. Most early Hasidic books were homiletical collections, with innovative ideas presented in fragmentary forms in a highly associative structure.18 The Tanya, on the other hand, presents a comprehensive Hasidic philosophy in the form of lengthy and tightly structured expositions. R. Shne’ur Zalman explicitly argued that the book was able to respond to every question that chasidim 15 Barnai, Igrot, 132n.18. 16 Translation taken from Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 51. The 1797 letter is printed in Barnai, Igrot, 238–232; cf. Hillman, Igrot, 105–107. 17 We permit ourselves to mix the metaphors of water and illuminating fire here, as the Zohar will often mix its prominent metaphors of water and light for the divine flow of energy through the sefirot. 18 Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, 93.

Theology, Succession, and Social Structure

189

might possibly wish to ask, thus obviating the need for each one to seek a private audience with him.19 This claim of absolute comprehensiveness is striking, and is reminiscent of Maimonides’ self-confident assertion in the introduction to his Mishneh Torah that an entire domain has been fully covered by his analysis.20 The Tanya, particularly its lengthy initial section known as Sefer shel Beinonim, attempts to fill in the context and tightly control the meaning of the terms and teachings that are presented in the book. Where the very form of many Hasidic texts from the same period would tend to encourage the reader to turn to the discourses related to that week’s Torah reading, or even simply to flip through the book looking for sparks of inspiration, the author of the Tanya raised a question in the first chapter which he finally offers an answer to, after laying extensive metaphysical and psychological groundwork, only in chapter fourteen. R.  Abraham seems to have felt that such a presentation actively discourages the reader from taking the sparks of individual insights and deriving personal, and multifarious, meaning from it. This is not to say that R. Shne’ur Zalman discouraged contemplation and a type of integration of his teachings by his followers. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. As is well known, contemplation [hitbonnenut] and the integration of the teachings into the heart are given an absolutely central place in the Tanya, and all of the extant works of its author. However, the central model is one of hierarchy and control, in which the intellect rules over the heart. For the author of the Tanya, his Hasidic system should be grasped as a whole that an individual attempts to “download,” then bringing his heart, and all of his thought, speech, and actions, into conformity with this supreme system. This is in sharp contrast to R.  Abraham of Kalisk’s model of the teacher providing a spark or a seed with takes unique, individual form in the receiver. For the Kalisker, Hasidic teaching cannot be transmitted whole, as it were, because its fullness is realized only in the overflow of multiplicity of meanings that flow forth from each individual heart that takes the divine word deep within itself. Until now, we have highlighted R. Abraham of Kalisk’s celebration, when the teacher does not douse the inner flame with an overabundance 19 See ibid., 93–96. 20 See the discussion in Polen, “Charismatic Leader, Charismatic Book,” 53–64.

190

C. Reader’s Guide

of oil, of the personal discovery of meanings within the heart of each individual. How does this notion relate to the Kalisker’s famous horizontal emphasis on interpersonal relationships and the cleaving together of members of a community [dibbuq chaverim]?21 A later letter sheds further light here. In a letter to the chasidim composed in 1793,22 R. Abraham addresses the problem of the drying up of inspiration amongst those who experience the words of Torah as “old.” If people are crying out for new books and teachings, “this is only because the words of Torah have become old in their eyes.” The solution to this problem, however, is not to be found in the form of teachings that present themselves superficially as “new revelations.” Rather, according to R. Abraham, authentic revelation comes in the form of the inner sense of Torah as revealed to those who are willing and able to revisit the same teaching again and again. Thus the verse “these words that I command you today should be upon your heart” (Deuteronomy 6:6) teaches us that the words of Torah should be “like new every day”:23 ‫ לחדש בכל יום תמיד את הישן כאלו היום‬,‫וזה עיקר קבלת עול מלכות שמים שלימה‬ ‫ ידע אינש בנפשי׳ שעה ראשונה שנתקרב לעבודת הבורא בתבערה מפני אור‬.‫נתנה‬ ‫ ואין כל חדש כי אם‬.‫ ככה יעשהו חדש כל הימים‬,‫החדש שהאירו עיניו ולבבו באור האמת‬ 24 .‫ חדש תוציא‬,‫ ובהתחדש הישן‬,‫לחדש כליותיו ועיני לבבו בדברים עתיקין‬ And this is the essence of receiving the yoke of the kingdom of heaven in the fullest manner: To make the old new, constantly, each day—as if [the Torah] was given today. Each person carries the awareness within themselves of that first time when they drew close to the service of the creator with a burning [enthusiasm] because of the new light that illumined his eyes and his heart with the light of truth—thus should he be made new all of his days. And “new” is nothing other than the renewal of his innards and the eyes of his heart in [contemplating] ancient words, and when the old is renewed, the new emerges. 21 See Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept” [1997], 155–169. [in this current volume, 75-89–Ed.] 22 Printed in Hilman, Igrot, 51–53. 23 Cf. RaSh”I on Deuteronomy 6:6, Sifrei Devarim 33, and the sources cited in Hilman, Igrot, 47n.3. 24 Ibid., 52.

Theology, Succession, and Social Structure

191

The troubling falling away from initial illumination and enthusiasm to a deadening sense of routine is presented in individual terms—only each one knows within himself the memory of that phase when he felt his eyes and heart lit up by the light of truth, and the painful contrast with his current state. Yet the wider context is likely R. Abraham’s reflections upon the signs of the falling away of the still-young Hasidic movement from its initial exuberance. Where the Tanya can be seen as a sobering message that this earlier era is fading and that chasidim should embrace a more constrained approach as the maturing of the movement, the Kalisker here is forceful in his insistence that the each chasid can—and should—strive to make each day illumined and renewed.25 To a certain extent the dispute here can be seen as dependent on matters of scale. As the numbers of his followers swelled, R.  Shne’ur Zalman developed a strong model of “top-down” leadership in which the fundamental framework of teachings and values would be laid down for all in a comprehensive and authoritative book.26 This was explicitly intended to obviate the need for individual meetings of chasidim with the Rebbe.27 While the need for personal guidance and in-person teaching was acknowledged, R. Shne’ur Zalman proposed that local guides should make themselves available to explain aspects of the text that eluded the grasp of their less-advanced fellows. The model is strictly hierarchical, and the entire system is, as we have seen, already worked out at the top by the Rebbe and covered entirely in the canonical text. (As is well known, Habad came to refer to the Tanya as “the Written Torah of Hasidism.”) The question is how to successfully transmit and implement this vision, particularly on a mass scale. The regulations and appointments of local guides, together with the widespread availability of the Tanya, were 25 The reading of the Tanya referred to here is laid out in detail, and in relation to the Kalisker’s critique, in Polen, “Charismatic Leader, Charismatic Book.” 26 An overview of the Tanya, including its canonization in ChaBa”D and remarks on its later reception history, is found in Ariel Evan Mayse, “The Sacred Writ of Hasidism: Tanya and the Spiritual Vision of Rabbi Shne’ur Zalman of Liady,” in Books of the People: Revisiting Classic Works of Jewish Thought, ed. Stuart W. Halpern (New York: Maggid Books, 2017), 109–156. 27 See the discussion of the motivations for the composition of the Tanya in Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, 93–96, and compare his overview of the development of the Liozna regulations, 41–49. Primary sources related to the latter are collected in Hilman, Igrot, 58–69.

192

C. Reader’s Guide

central components of the solution R. Shne’ur Zalman proposed—and which R. Abraham would come to oppose.28 R. Abraham’s own community remained committed to a more horizontal notion of revelation, based on mutual love.29 In the continuation of the 1793 letter, R. Abraham notes that the Zohar claims that all of the commandments are contained in each commandment,30 adding that each letter of the Torah contains all of the letters. And, he adds, it is known that the Torah’s letters are the roots of the vitality of the people of Israel. Taken together, this means that the vitality of the Jewish people sparks interrelatedly: ‫ואפשר שזה פירוש כל ישראל ערבין זה בזה—פי׳ שמעורבים אורותיהם וחיותיהם‬ ‫ וזה פירוש‬.‫ ומחמת זה מצווים ועומדים במצות ואהבת לרעך כמוך ממש‬.‫איש באחיו‬ ‫‘רבים אומרים מי יראנו טוב’—שיהי׳ כל אחד טוב רואי לראות חיותו וטובו ואורו‬ 31 .‫הנכלל וגנוז בחברו‬ And it is possible that this is the meaning of [the teaching] “all of Israel are guarantors [‘arevin] for one another”32—that is, each one’s light and vitality is mixed [me‘uravim] with that of his fellow. For this reason, they are eternally commanded with the commandment [Leviticus 19:18] “and you shall love your fellow as yourself,” truly. And this is the meaning of [the verse (Psalms 4:7)] “many are saying, ‘who will show us good?’”— that each one should see the good, [able] to see his vitality, his goodness, and his light as it is included and concealed within his fellow.

Note the emphasis on the personal nature of the revelation for each one in this vision of mutually loving community. Each one sees his own vitality, goodness, light—his own letters of Torah—in the other. And yet, as the emphasis on mixing makes clear, this vision is also uncompromisingly communal. In fact, R. Abraham proceeds to argue, the breakdown 28 See the discussion in Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 77–86. 29 Of course, R. Shne’ur Zalman emphasized love, between the human and the divine and between human persons, throughout his teachings, and addressed Leviticus 19:18 with great force in chapter 32 of the Tanya. The point here is that R. Abraham makes this the source of Torah revelation, as we will explain shortly. 30 Zohar III:124a. 31 Hilman, Igrot, 52–53. 32 For the discussion of this expression, including the variant endings bah-zeh (as here) and la-zeh, see Reuben M. Rudman, “Kol Yisra’el Areivim Zeh Ba-Zeh,” Tradition 42, no. 2 (Summer 2009), 35–49.

Theology, Succession, and Social Structure

193

of communal love also makes the true inner wellspring inaccessible to each individual: ‫וזה אי אפשר להיות כי אם על ידי ‘נסה עלינו אור פניך ה’—פי׳ אור פנימית ה׳‬ ‫המהוה כל הויות ולית אתר פניו מיני׳ ועל ידי זה יכול לראות ולקבל כל טוב על ידי‬ ‫ נמצא הכסיל‬. . . .‫התגלות מדת חבירו הצפון ונכלל וגנוז בתוכו אור חיותו של עצמו‬ ‫ אי‬,’‫ היפך מדת האהבה והיראה וכו‬,‫ההולך במכת חושך מחמת הקנאה והתאוה והכבוד‬ ‫ ומחמת הקנאה וכו׳ כנ״ל מכבה בעצמו אור‬.‫אפשר לו לראות אותיות אור חיותו בחברו‬ 33 .‫חיותו הנכלל בחברו‬ And this is only possible by means of [Psalms 4:7] “raise up to us the illumination of your face, God”—that is, the interior light of God which grants being to all that exists, and “there is no place devoid of Him.”34 And it is by means of this that it is possible to see and to receive all goodness, via the revelation of the attribute of his fellow, within which is hidden, included, and concealed the light of his own vitality. . . . It emerges that for the fool who walks in the plague of darkness [unable to see his fellow’s goodness] because of envy, craving, and desire for honor—which are the opposites of the attributes of love and fear, and so on—it is impossible for him to see the letters of the light of his vitality in his fellow. Thus, because of the envy and [other negative traits] as mentioned above, he extinguished within himself the light of his vitality which is included in his fellow.

That is, it is when I am blocked from seeing my own light as found in my friend—because of my self-absorption, self-focus, jealousy, and so on—then I feel I need illumination from “new Torah.” In truth, this is a result of not seeing my own insights as revealed with clarity in and by my fellow. Instead, I may focus on what I discern to be my friend’s limitations, which rather than the illumination of my inner vitality provide no more than the projection of my own self-absorption. Hence the emphasis on dibbuq chaverim and the emphasis on savoring and deepening the insights one already has are interrelated, paired, dovetailed. All of this sets the stage for R. Abraham’s impassioned critique of the Tanya when it reached him in 1797. It also helps us to appreciate the positive vision that informs his opposition. It is misleading to simply state 33 Hilman, Igrot, 53. 34 Tiqqunei ha-Zohar, 123b.

194

C. Reader’s Guide

that R. Abraham of Kalisk opposes the “revelation” of “esoteric” material. Rather, he is convinced that the true revelations of the esoteric secrets are the lived insights derived from interpersonal relationships within a devotional community. They are the letters which sparkle with vitality when illumined and revealed through the kind of generous and loving mutual seeing evoked here. Books and teachings can help if they are allowed to energize and enlighten this process, but not when they threaten to replace it. In the latter case, the teaching becomes the overabundance of oil that extinguishes the candle. This was liable to happen when the teachings were rigidified into a theoretical systemization, all the more so when paralleled by the imposition of a stratified and regimented social structure. R.  Abraham’s 1797 letter would criticize not only the manner of exposition of the Tanya, but would also express concern for R. Dov Ber (later called the “Mittler Rebbe”), R. Shne’ur Zalman’s son, whom he had appointed as a leader and was apparently grooming for greatness. At least, this is the manner in which the Kalisker raised the issue, writing that he is concerned about the “difficult trial” that R. Shne’ur Zalman had subjected his son to by appointing him to a high position of authority.35 In particular, such greatness was liable to subject R. Dov Ber, as young as he was, to the dangerous trap of pride and arrogance.36 Even if we do not entirely dismiss the sincerity of this concern for the fate of Dov Ber, it is evident that something more lay behind this criticism.37 Recall that the hereditary principle, to become so fateful in determining the future form of Hasidism, had not yet emerged. Neither the Ba‘al Shem Tov not the Maggid of Mezrich has appointed their sons as their successors.38 Many 35 R. Dov Ber had been appointed to helping his father with court administration, and the overseeing of the local leaders for each of the prayer groups which recognized R. Shne’ur Zalman as their supreme authority. 36 Hilman, Igrot, 106. He would have been approximately twenty-three years old at the time this letter was composed. 37 See the discussion in Etkes, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, 211–213. 38 Scholarship has long recognized that the Hasidic movement as such did not take shape during the lifetime of the Ba‘al Shem Tov, later claimed by the movement as its founder, and it is therefore anachronistic to suggest that the Ba‘al Shem Tov was a Hasidic Rebbe who did not appoint his son as a successor to his court—he had no court. Nonetheless, R. Abraham takes this Hasidic lineage seriously and frequently appeals to his portrayal of their ways as the models of proper Hasidic leadership and pedagogy.

Theology, Succession, and Social Structure

195

of the students of the Maggid also did not act in this manner, including, as I shall show, both R.  Abraham Kalisker and his esteemed colleague in Tiberias, R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk. R. Shne’ur Zalman’s son R.  Dov Ber, together with R.  Mordekhai of Chernobyl, the son of R. Menachem Nahum of Chernobyl, are some of the earliest and most influential examples of the hereditary principle emerging in Hasidism, and the beginning of Hasidic dynasties. It seems likely that it is this sea change which R. Abraham feared was emerging with R. Shne’ur Zalman’s promotion of his son to a position in the court of considerable authority. If so, what may he have seen as being at stake? Once again, to appreciate R.  Abraham’s critique it is necessary to understand more fully the vision of Hasidism—and Hasidic community—which he sees himself as promoting and, indeed, defending here. In addition to the material that we have already seen, it is instructive to turn now to a teaching from R.  Abraham as recorded in Chesed le-Abraham.39 This lesson clarifies much about the role of revelation, the nature of emunah (usually rendered “faith”), and the communal structure that underlies his vision. Scholars have rightly noted the central role that emunah plays in R. Abraham’s discourses and letters, and the frequency with which he appeals to the talmudic passage which states that Habakkuk came and stood all of Torah upon one principle: “the righteous man [tzaddiq] will live by his faith [emunah]” (Habakkuk 4:2).40 How did R. Abraham himself convey his understanding of this key term in his discourse? R.  Abraham opens the teaching by citing a midrashic reading of God’s words to the patriarch Abraham, “And I will make you [ve-e‘sekha] a great nation” (Genesis 12:2). The midrash reads this as a promise to make “you” into a new being, a new creature [bri’ah chadashah], associating

39 Chesed le-Abraham (Chernovitz: Meshulam Hiller, 1851 [5643], original edition, Chernovitz, 1910–1911 [5611]), 29b–30a. This book contains sermons of R. Abraham ha-Mal’akh and R.  Abraham Kalisker, as well as texts attributed to several other tzaddiqim. The Hebrew text below will be taken from the 1851 edition, though minor textual variants will be given in the notes based on a later printing: Chesed le-Abraham (Warsaw: Meir Yehiel Halter, 1883), parshat Ki Tissa, 89–91. 40 bMakkot 24a. Loewenthal refers to this talmudic passage as having been “adopted by R. Abraham as the motto of his movement” in Communicating the Infinite, 84.

196

C. Reader’s Guide

this with God’s “making” the great luminaries in Genesis 1:16.41 Thus R. Abraham frames his sermon around the root question, how can we become divinely renewed beings, how can we become illumined? This resonates closely with the language and concerns that we saw above from his letters. Fundamentally, the Kalisker goes on to reply that this is possible only through an attainment of a level of prophecy—indeed, of that level of prophecy associated with Moses, who gazed through a clear (or shining) lens [aspeqlaria ha-me’irah].42 Yet how could this level of prophecy be available to the community as a whole, who are surely not on the level of Moses? R. Abraham answers: through emunah. And it is here that he lays out much more richly what this term does, and does not, mean for him. Initially, R. Abraham cites the talmudic claim that Habakkuk’s principle that the tzaddiq will live by his emunah is the most fundamental root of Torah. In R. Abraham’s words, it is the foundation of all things. But given that this is the case, he asks, is it not difficult to understand why emunah is not itself commanded in the Torah? We are commanded to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and to fear God (Leviticus 19:14), but why not to have emunah, which is the indispensable foundation of all positive trait?43 As he puts it, “it is impossible to come to any trait, [including] love or fear, without emunah. If one does not have emunah, whom will he love? Whom will he fear?” Revealingly, he also adds the positive: “When emunah is strong, it is possible for there to be a flourishing of the [positive] traits by means of this foundation.” So, again, if it is so supremely important, why did the Torah not command it?

41 Tanchuma, Lekh Lekha 3. The midrash justifies this reading by saying that a mere change of status, as opposed to an ontological renewal, would have been indicated by the term “and I shall appoint (va-asim’kha),” from the same root used in the Bible for the appointment of kings (Deuteronomy 17:15). Notably, this is also the very term used to refer to Ishmael’s descendants being “appointed” as a great nation by God in Genesis 21:14 (and cf. 21:18), and it may be that a desire to differentiate these two similar divine promises motivates the contrast here, although it is not made explicit in this source. 42 bYebamot 49b. 43 There is no verse which deploys emunah in a command form parallel to those he cites for love and fear, although Maimonides, for instance, did believe that a certain belief in or knowledge of God is indeed a commandment (it is first in his list of positive commandments).

Theology, Succession, and Social Structure

197

R.  Abraham replies that emunah is the very foundation and, in a real sense, the totality of the religious life with all of its commandments and traits. Thus, it cannot also be reduced to one of the commandments. Emunah is the foundation through which we can ascend to the highest of all levels, integrating and aligning all attributes from the lowest level (sof dargin) until the very highest. This leads ultimately to understanding (corresponding to the sefirah Binah), wisdom (Chokhmah), and ayin (“No-Thing,” a term for the highest sefirah Keter), and unto the Ein Sof. This is the level of Mosaic prophecy, the clear lens, that the people of Israel achieved at the Red Sea by placing their emunah in God (Exodus 14:31). At the crossing of the Sea, the midrash famously claims that the people of Israel saw that which even the prophets did not see.44 That is, “they achieved the level of Moses.” Thus reaching up to the primordial divine nothingness, they were able to be renewed and to “live by their emunah,” to become renewed beings. ‫ שבאברהם כתיב‬.‫ בריאה חדשה‬45]‫וזהו פירוש המדרש (״ואעשך״)—[ואעשה אותך‬ ‫ בריאה‬47‫ שהוא‬,‫ למעלה מכל המדות למדת אין‬46‫״והאמין בה׳״ ועל ידי אמונה בא‬ ‫ כי צריך שיהיה כ״כ מושרש אמונה בלבו שירגישו כל האברים והגוף‬.‫חדשה ממש‬ ‫ לוקח‬49‫ מזון וחיות לכל האברים ממה שאדם אוכל‬48‫שהלב הוא המלך והוא המחלק‬ ‫״‬,‫ כך הוא ״באמונתו יחיה‬.‫ ואח״כ מחלק הדם לכל האברים שיהיה להם חיות‬,‫התמצית‬ ‫ שיהיה לב שומע וירגישו כל האברים כולם גודל‬,‫שיהיה קבוע בלבו שישמע כל לבו‬ ‫ והחכמה מאין תמצא עד א״ס ב״ה וב״ש א״ס [אין סוף‬,‫ והלב מבין בבינה‬.‫אמונה בה׳‬ [.‫ [ודי למבין‬.‫ וד״ל‬.]‫ברוך הוא וברוך שמו אין סוף‬ And this is the explanation of the midrash [which reads] “and I will make you”: “and I will make you a new being.” Since it is written about Abraham, “and he had emunah in God,” and it is by means of emunah that he ascended above all the [other] attributes to the attribute of ayin [“No-Thing”], and he is truly a new being. And this is what is needed, for emunah to becoming so deeply rooted in one’s heart until it is felt in 44 Mekhilta, Beshalach 15:2. 45 These brackets and parentheses are as found in the original printed text. 46 Both editions cited above in note 40 give “‫( ”שיבא‬in future tense) in parenthesis as a variant, which doesn’t change the fundamental sense of the passage. 47 Warsaw edition reads “‫שהיא‬,” an apparent error. 48 This word is missing in the Warsaw edition. 49 This word is missing in the Warsaw edition.

198

C. Reader’s Guide

his body and all of his limbs. For the heart is the king, and it distributes nourishment and vitality to all of the limbs. From that which a person consumes, it takes the essence, distributing the blood afterwards to all of the limbs so that they will be vitalized. In this manner “he will live by his emunah,” that is it shall be so established in his heart that his entire heart will hear, that it shall be a listening heart, and all of the limbs in their totality will feel great emunah in God. And the heart understands in understanding [Binah], and wisdom [Chokhmah] comes forth from ayin [Keter],50 until the Ein Sof, blessed be he and blessed be his name, without end. This is enough for those who understand.

R. Abraham vividly describes the manner in which emunah, when fully realized, acts as a vitalizing integral force that joins together all the “levels” of reality, from the lowest to the highest. In this concluding paragraph, he expresses this both in terms of the binding together of all elements of the person’s physical and psychic structure as well as in more metaphysical terms. The unity of the limbs, vital and sensitive to the flow of emunah, with the inner understanding of the heart, reaches ultimately up to the very limits of that which can be grasped, where wisdom itself emerges from the divine Nothing and the infinitude of God. R. Abraham lays out in this teaching his understanding of the full force of the principle that one “lives” and is vitalized by emunah. And, as we saw above, he uses it to portray the manner in which an entire community, suffused by this emunah, achieves the spiritual consciousness of Moses, as all of Israel did at the time of the crossing of the Sea. In the light of such a teaching, we cannot concur with the characterization of the Kalisker’s emphasis on emunah in Loewenthal: “The only mode of relationship between the mind of the individual and the Divine was faith, beyond rational intellect, simply the cleaving of spirit to spirit. This structure left no room for theosophical ideas nor for contemplation of esoteric teachings.”51 Loewenthal is a superb guide to R. Shne’ur Zalman, but less so for the Hasidism of R.  Abraham of Kalisk. His formulation assumes that 50 Citing the language of the first half of Job 28:12, generally rendered along the lines of “But wisdom, where shall it be found?,” but long read hyperliterally in the Kabbalah as a statement: “And Wisdom shall be found from Nothing” referring to the emergence of the sefirah Chokhmah from sefirah Keter (ayin). 51 Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 84.

Theology, Succession, and Social Structure

199

emunah refers to a lower level, so-called “simple faith.” Yet, as we have seen, to characterize R.  Abraham’s position as advocating for “only” and “simply” faith is to assume that there are other faculties which we should put aside. Yet R. Abraham is emphatic that emunah is inseparable from the contemplative heart and wisdom. The description from his 1786 letter, presented towards the beginning of this essay, of the slow and patient process of reflecting upon Torah teachings until they become deeply internalized and begin to flow forth in a renewing sense of multiple meanings has nothing to do with an anti-intellectual promotion of mere dogmatic cognitive assent. What R. Abraham opposes is the type of intellectualism that becomes detached from the heart, from the feelings of faith that suffuses the body, from each one’s unique flame of inner illumination. This is not to say that R. Shne’ur Zalman’s system aimed at detached intellectualism. This would be a gross mischaracterization of the goals of ChaBa”D. One of the main areas of focus of the Tanya is the need to allow the clarified notions of the mind to give birth to intense feelings of love and yearning towards the divine which enflame the heart. Yet the integration of the intellect and the emotions as envisioned in the Tanya is only made possible through a strict hierarchy that places the intellect and its concepts above the feelings of the heart.52 R. Shne’ur Zalman presents this hierarchy in terms of conquest, dominion, and rulership. The mind must vanquish the heart so that the proper order may be realized: the mind exercising dominion over the heart [mo’ach shalit ‘al ha-lev].53 The integration that follows is the assimilation of all of the lower elements to the dictates of the higher. For R. Abraham of Kalisk, however, the aligned integration, which is emunah, is not imposed from above, but rather emerges in an embodied awareness. In fact, the awareness is distributed throughout the body. Rather than raw material to be shaped by the intellect, the Kalisker presents the “lower” faculties imbued with emunah as the providing the firm 52 Tanya, 1:2. 53 Tanya, 1:12, and cf. 1:17, 30, and 51. The official English translation of the Tanya contains this note on the first reference to this phrase: “The doctrine of the inherent supremacy of ‘intellect over emotion’ is one of the basic, though not original, tenets of ChaBaD. Comp. Maimonides, Guide III, 8.” Liqqutei Amarim—Tanya: Bi-Lingual Edition, revised edition (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1993), 49n.10.

200

C. Reader’s Guide

foundation upon which the intellect must stand in order to contemplate in the proper manner. For the Kalisker, the state of emunah is not commanded; it is not the result of the mind controlling and governing the heart. Emunah is the nature of being, and the entirety of a person is transformed and renewed through sensitivity to this reality, when the conditions are cultivated which enable it to seep in through every aspect of human existence. For both R. Abraham and R. Shne’ur Zalman, these different models of the ideal inner life of the individual are inextricably bound up with a social vision. As we have seen, for the Kalisker the notion of individual revelation and realization is completely incomprehensible outside of the context of a conscious community that practices seeing one another with beneficence, respect, and love. This is described in a horizontal, mutual, and interdependent manner, for all of Israel is “mixed” in with one another. Note that the revelations that emerge from each one come from seeing a friend in this manner, not from seeing or receiving from the tzaddiq as a singular figure. In the Kalisker’s vision, the community as a whole can ascend to the level of Moses, creating a kind of field in which emunah can be distributed and revelations accessed—although for each one these will sparkle with multiple meanings deriving from his own heartfelt contemplation. Without any doubt, R. Shne’ur Zalman also promotes a vision of a community suffused with unity and love.54 But the vast majority of the community, rather than serving as a field in which revelation emerges, is to nullify itself to the revelation which emerges from the tzaddiq at the pinnacle of the hierarchy. If awareness of God is successfully distributed among the chasidim, it is because they receive it through the tzaddiq, Moses. It is he who “brings down the quality of da‘at [“knowledge”] to the community of Israel that they may know the Lord, each according to the capacity of his soul and its root above, and its nurture from the root of the soul of our teacher Moses, peace upon him, which is rooted in the da‘at elyon [“higher knowledge”] of the ten sefirot of Atzilut, which are united with their blessed Emanator. . . .”55 In contrast to the Kalisker’s description of all Israel attaining the level of Moses, 54 Tanya, 1:32, and throughout. 55 Tanya, 1:42, translation taken from Tanya: Bi-Lingual Edition [1993], 217.

Theology, Succession, and Social Structure

201

and thus having a clear channel [aspeqlaria ha-me’ira] to the divine reality, according to the Tanya we receive our da‘at through Moses, who is rooted in da‘at of Atzilut. Each individual is linked to Moses who is united with the Divine mind. Each one’s understanding is mediated by Moses or Moses-like figures—the tzaddiqim of each generation.56 Our service is according to our level of understanding, but our understanding is mediated by our leaders. The tzaddiq channels his awareness. R. Shne’ur Zalman’s grooming of his son as presumptive successor implies a doctrine that might be called conservation of tzaddiq-energy. A core element of the lengthy initial section of the Tanya is the insistence on creating an increasingly intense, unique, and non-distributed notion of the status of the tzaddiq.57 Indeed this section gets its name, “The Book of the Intermediate Persons” (Sefer shel Beinonim) from its fundamental argument that the reader should recognize his non-tzaddiq status and strive to be the best beinoni that he can. This intensely singular tzaddiq-position then needs to be conserved and transmitter in a lineal fashion to the next generation. Thus the theological critique and the social critique in the Kalisker’s 1797 letter dovetail. R. Abraham sees that the extraordinary status of the tzaddiq as described in Tanya is linked to the idea that this status will be passed down. This in turn relates to the development of the Hasidic court as an “asset,” a spiritual brand that cannot be allowed to dissipate but demands to be preserved and handed down, presumably to a son or son-in-law. We know that this was not the approach adopted by R.  Abraham or R.  Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk in Tiberias. R.  Moses, the son of 56 Note that the Tanya does teach in this same chapter that “every soul of the house of Israel contains within it something of the quality of our teacher Moses.” This is not really parallel to R. Abraham’s model of all or Israel attaining the level of Moses, however, for R.  Shne’ur Zalman immediately proceeds to differentiate the level of Moses, as a general soul containing “the sum of them all,” and to make the clearly phrased remarks about mediated access to the divine quoted here. 57 The static nature of the tzaddiq in the Tanya, including his infallibility, can be contrasted to R.  Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk’s description of the complex, multilayered spiritual life of the tzaddiqim. A tzaddiq experiences the full ensemble of emotional responses, lives in constant flux, at times sustained only by a trace, held onto with emunah, from a previous transient sublime realization. See R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, Liqqutei Amarim (Lviv, 1911), s.v. ‘atid ha-qadosh barukh hu le-hanhil, 20b–21a.

202

C. Reader’s Guide

the Vitebsker, did not “succeed” his father—and this by his father’s own design. In a letter composed about a month after his father’s passing in the Spring of 1788, we find R. Moses declaring that he wishes to place himself under the [sheltering] shade of the wisdom of R. Abraham, referring to him by the full title (ADMo”R Moreinu ha-Rav) of a Hasidic master. R. Moses writes that he did this, “as was commanded me [ke-asher tzivani].” Who commanded him? As the letter was printed in earlier editions of the letter, it was not clear.58 However, Mordekhai Vilensky, in his archival research in the 1980s in Leningrad, discovered that one word that was lacking in the previous transcriptions of the letter: abba.59 We therefore have direct testimony from his own son that R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk was commanded by his father not to establish himself as a Rebbe in place of his father but instead to situate himself within the community of R. Abraham. Note also the letter written by the Tiberias chasidim after the passing of R.  Abraham of Kalisk, dated Shevat 5571 [1811] (R.  Abraham died on 4 Shevat 5770 [1810]). This letter expresses concern about the continuation of the ma‘amadot—the funds (which R. Shne’ur Zalman oversaw for many years) from the diaspora to support the fledgling Hasidic community in Tiberias—and mentions designated authorized emissaries for these funds. The community still sees itself as a cohesive group, however, no mention is made of a successor to R. Abraham— either from his family or from his students—to lead the community. Rather, the introduction to the letter suggests a collective community with distributed leadership not vested in any single individual, based upon love and mutual bonding.60 In summary, while the distribution of funds was certainly a major concern and at times became a flashpoint, we should not diminish the significance of principled views about the nature of Hasidism in fueling the split between R. Abraham and R. Shne’ur Zalman. The latter was an extraordinarily leader gifted with genuine charisma and commanding intellect, who led a large and expanding network of followers. The ongoing impact of the ChaBa”D school that he founded is undeniable. 58 See, for example, Barnai, Igrot, 180. 59 As brought in Mordekhai Vilensky, Ha-Yishuv he-Chasidi be-Tiveria (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1988), 127, and n.5 there. 60 See Barnai, Igrot, 288–292, for the full text of the letter and the names of its signers.

Theology, Succession, and Social Structure

203

R. Abraham of Kalisk, on the other hand, chose to go to the Holy Land and cultivate a small and intimate circle, together with R.  Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk. In his view, this small circle was able to reflect the ethos of early Hasidism. R.  Abraham’s views on Hasidic theology and social structure work hand in hand. They are internally consistent, with an integrity, depth, and power that must be understood and evaluated on their own terms. His voice deserves to be recovered with clarity.

R. Abraham Kalisker’s Critique of Tanya Haviva Pedaya (Ben Gurion University, Be’er Sheva)

The following explanatory note reflects my reading of the arguments raised by R. Abraham Kalisker in a letter written to R. Shne’ur Zalman in the year 1797 [5557]: And this fault too I found in the whole of the epistle that was sent to me: it is clear that they [that is, you] have descended backward by ten degrees. I found nothing satisfactory here, for the honored teacher of holy Torah has put the sun back into its sheath, by wrapping the words of the holy Rabbi of Mezrich—which are the words of the holy Ba‘al Shem Tov—in the words of the holy AR”I. Even if everything goes to one place, the language of Torah is one thing and the language of the sages is another.1

What R. Abraham has discerned with his sharp eye and exerts himself to explain, is that the method of R. Shne’ur Zalman reverses the spiritual direction of chasidim. The sun has already been revealed and he puts it back into its sheath, wrapping the words of Hasidism in the words of R. Yitzchak Luria, and this is reactionary and stifling. He continues: And I see what will come of this, Heaven forbid: in this ‘Book of the Intermediate ’ which the honored teacher of holy Torah has printed, I did not find much that is useful for the saving of souls. For they, learned in 1 Hillman, Igrot, 58, 105 [all italics mine].

R. Abraham Kalisker’s Critique of Tanya

205

much counsel, in the commandments as taught by man ‫במצוות אנשים‬ [‫ מלומדה גמרא גמור זמורתא תהא קשה [עתיקא‬and according to the degree of the recipients, to whom it will supply a spark of G-d divided into several reasons, for such is the way of Torah. And an excess of oil in the lamp could cause it, Heaven forbid, to go out.

If we may draw a comparison between this paradigmatic dispute between schools and directions of teaching, to the debate between schools of Zen in China, we may say that the excess of oil is an intellectual knowledge that is apt to blur the immediate shock of the koan and blunt the aspiration to an experience parallel to satori. An excess of oil puts out the light, blocks the access to it. In strong critical language, R. Abraham argues that the Tanya is likely to harm instead of helping. The Hasidic way is sensitivity, “according to the degree of the recipient.” Teaching is a one-time event that happens between the teacher and the disciple according to the degree and the way of the recipient. Too much knowledge, for one who does not have the vessels, is like to submerge the essence of this experience of awakening: “an excess of oil in the lamp could cause it, Heaven forbid, to go out.” In Zen terms, the Tanya is a retreat from immediate enlightenment to the path of gradual enlightenment, because it places a much greater emphasis on static, unchanging matters such as Torah, prayer, and mitzvoth. It is also a retreat from the teaching of not-knowing to a dogmatic representation of knowing. The danger is, of course, that even one who does not truly know will be sure that he knows—and not only knows knowledge, but even knows not-knowing. Not-knowing by its nature cannot be transmitted as a doctrine but only as a koan. According to R. Abraham Kalisker, in his book R. Shne’ur Zalman delivers a lengthy speech that is not specifically directed to any one person, and thus departs from the Hasidic way of brief speech which seizes a specific person—the one who stands before the teacher at the moment— by the throat, shining its searchlight on him: “And the speech of the Torah is a crutch and clean [‫]קב ונקי‬, and the little contains much; such speech holds a blessing, a hidden light that will shine for him.” Kalisker is repelled by the energetic methods of missionizing and indoctrination to which R. Shne’ur Zalman is resorting:

206

C. Reader’s Guide

And I will not hide from my dear brother what is in my heart. I fear that the increase in the numbers of chasidim is a trick of the Other Side [sitra achra], Heaven forbid, to cause the grain to be lost amid the chaff, G-d forbid. For those who ascend are few. One in a city and two in a family, and especially in these days, when falsehood has grown exceedingly strong. And those who wrap themselves in a tallit that is not theirs, in words of great and wondrous things, mysteries of mysteries, and are sunk in all kinds of desires and bad traits.2

R. Abraham does not see the book as separate from R. Shne’ur Zalman’s social course of action: And I fear for the seed of the father, his son the distinguished and learned R.  Dov Ber, because the honored teacher has brought him into a great temptation like a ship in the midst of the sea; for one needs great counselors to escape from the net of pride and greatness. . . . And all the great ones of the generation who were in this time of ours were much grieved when they became known. . . . And the honored teacher has brought his son into this, he is still of tender years and has no weapons of war. . . . All the more so others of lesser quality and greater quantity whom the book is mean to teach in every city, those who are called intermediate heads of minyans. I am afraid that they will never see the bright light in the heavens of truth and uprightness.

Further on in the letter it becomes clear that R.  Shne’ur Zalman’s appointment of his younger son as his helper or deputy is bound up with his removal of senior scholars who are named in the letter—Aharon ha-Qatan of Smalain and Aharon ha-Levi of Vitebsk. About the latter he writes that “the world knows him from his youth as a true and sincere servant of God, and there is no greater desecration of the name than the humiliation of such a man. Therefore, for the sake of the sanctification of the Name, send after him and pacify him words of truth and love, and let my brother not listen to the advice of the young, for the building of the young is a tearing-down.” Here we hear about the social course of action which parallels the writing of the book—the appointment of R. Shne’ur Zalman’s young son and the delegation of heads of minyans, “lesser in quality and more in 2 Barnai, Igrot, 239–240; Haran, “R.  Abraham of Kalisk and R.  Shne’ur Zalman of Liady,” 399, 400, 403, 406; Ra’aya Haran, The Internal Ideological Dispute in Hasidism [Heb.] (PhD diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1992–1993 [5753]), 207.

R. Abraham Kalisker’s Critique of Tanya

207

quantity,” as R.  Abraham calls all heads of minyans whom R.  Shne’ur Zalman appointed in various synagogues to monitor prayer and to teach Sefer shel Beinonim. R. Abraham expresses in provocative terms his fear that they are going in the way of falsehood: “they will never see the clear light in the heavens of truth and uprightness.” When one reads R. Shne’ur Zalman’s enterprise simultaneously on two levels—the text of the book and the social course of action—it becomes clear that R. Shne’ur Zalman is initiating a drastic doctrinization of Hasidic ideas while stepping up their dissemination. Probably his motive is the desire to educate, from a consciousness that the messianic vision of the Ba‘al Shem Tov is bound up with dissemination (evident from sayings such as “You shall know by this, at the time when your wellsprings will be spread abroad”). In any case, he is acting according to the strategies that characterized his teacher, the Maggid of Mezrich, in the founding of the Hasidic movement: dissemination, persuasion, emissaries, deputations, in a network of dissemination, which was evidently not kept separate from the collection of monies and the solicitation of donations. But R. Shne’ur Zalman set this social mechanism in motion in accordance with the current stage of the movement, so that one can define his project as the institutionalization of the Hasidic movement (after the fact, this became the founding of ChaBa”D as a institutionalized movement). The Maggid had contributed much to that transition from fellowship to court, which was the basis for the spread of Hasidism as a movement. R.  Shne’ur Zalman was responsible for the transition from movement to institution. In the process of conceptualization, education, assignment of tasks, and the spreading of a network of leadership and control under his supervision, ChaBa”D (this time not all of chasidim, which is of course not under his control) becomes an institution. Perhaps for the first time in the history of Judaism (for Christianity this was a basic phenomenon throughout the Middle Ages) we see an institution founded on mysticism, in thought and in structure as well as in its organizational foundation. The controversy is also reflected in another short sermon from three years before the printing of the Tanya. This sermon, in which some sentences are truncated, criticizes R. Shne’ur Zalman’s path in language that is more oblique, but that leaves no room for doubt as to who is meant. Apparently, this is R. Abraham’s first reaction to the “Book of the

208

C. Reader’s Guide

Intermediate Man”—the Tanya—which was distributed in many copies even before it was printed in book form.3 He writes: Would that they would place doing before hearing; as our teachers of blessed memory have said, “one whose wisdom is greater,” etc. And in my opinion it is tested and tried that one whose wisdom is greater than his deeds causes damage, and not in this is wisdom, understanding and knowledge. And the principle and root of it all, is that he should direct his eyes and his heart to this word among the words of the living God, so as to hear it, so that it will strengthen him with nails, so that it will be engraved and dug into his heart, for living liquid water flows of itself from the aforementioned saying. And by virtue of this he will climb and ascend degree after degree and will thank God who advised him to drive out materialism little by little. And this is a saying of our teachers of blessed memory: “And do not inquire into what is beyond you.” That is, it is beyond you in yourself, because it does not flow from the heart but only from hearing—do not inquire.”

Here doing is identical to knowledge that flows from the essence, resulting in an expansion of spirituality, a steady increase in spiritualization. The unity of doing and spirituality, as a basic characteristic of Hasidism, is contrasted to a theoretical and external knowledge which comes from without through an overload of theorization on the part of the teacher—with a provocative hint that ChaBa”D is not wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, and thus does not contribute but detracts.

3 Karlinsky, Historyah sheke-Neged: Igrot ha-Chasidim me-Eretz-Yisraʼel: ha-Teqst veha-Qonteqst (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzchaq Ben-Tzvi, 1998), 34–39.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker: The Path to Communion as the Legacy of the Bnei ‘Aliyah Ra’aya Haran o.b.m. (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem)

I. Scholars of Hasidism have not devoted much effort to the teachings of R. Abraham Kalisker (d. 1810) other than to mention him in the context of his ‘aliyah to the Land of Israel in the company of R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk (d. 1788) or with reference to his differences of opinion with R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady (d. 1812). Regarding his own theory of Hasidism, however, researchers have mostly relied on the traditional opinion that R. Abraham Kalisker preached a simple faith.1 1 This was specifically the opinion of ChaBa”D tradition, in the footsteps of which followed many researchers. See Chayyim Meir Heilman, Beit Rabi (Tel Aviv, 1943– 1944 [5704], original edition, Berdichev: H. Y. Sheftel, 1901 [5662]), vol. 1, 44a; Teitelbaum, Ha-Rav mi-Liady, vol. 1, 137–140. Cf. also Brawer, “On the Quarrel,” 142–144; Simon Dubnow, Toldot ha-Chasidim (Tel Aviv, 1974–1975 [5735]; original edition, Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1929–1932 [5690–5692]), 335; Joseph Weiss, Mechqarim

210

C. Reader’s Guide

Very little has come down to us of R. Kalisker’s lessons or sermons. Extant nonetheless are some letters that he wrote from Tiberias during the lifetime of R. Menachem Mendel, some additional comments he added to the letters that R.  Menachem Mendel sent to his followers abroad, and a letter that he wrote to some overseas hasidim after R. Menachem Mendel’s death in some of which his worldview is presented in sermonic format. And there also exist some sixteen pages of homiletical material by R. Kalisker in the book Chesed le-Abraham, a volume that combines sermonic material by various tzaddiqim and particularly by R. Abraham ha-Malakh, the son of R. Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezrich (d. 1772). Aside from that material, however, there have been very few works of research devoted to analyzing R. Kalisker’s thought: Joseph Weiss published an essay in 1955 devoted specifically to R. Kalisker’s approach to Hasidism2 and Ze’ev Gries published a sketch of R. Kalisker’s personality and thought in 1984.3 In addition to those efforts, Gershon David Hundert prepared a biography of R. Kalisker in 1971.4

II. Weiss opens his essay by stating his intention to analyze a single letter by R. Kalisker,5 but ends up working on a text that appeared in print piecemeal in various places as though each part was to constitute a separate be-Chasidut Bratzlav, ed. Mendel Piekarz (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1974–1975 [5735]), 88; Chayyah Stiman-Katz, Rei’shitan shel ‘Aliyot ha-Chasidim (Jerusalem, 1986–1987 [5747]), 112. Cf. also Elior, “The Minsk Dispute,” 196. Please note that references to original works have generally been inserted into the body of the essay and that all emphases in this essay are my own. 2 Weiss, “R. Abraham Kalisker’s Concept” [1955], 87–99, and idem, “Rabbi Abraham Kalisker’s Concept,” in his Studies in Eastern European Jewish Mysticism, ed. D. Goldstein (Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1985), 155–169. [in this current volume, 75-89–Ed.] References in this essay from this point on are to Weiss’s book. 3 Ze’ev Gries, “From Myth to Ethos,” see this volume. [in this current volume, 90-128–Ed.] 4 Hundert, Towards a Biography of R. Abraham Kaliskersee this volume. A work with a distinct hagiographical feel to it that awards a serious amount of space to R. Kalisker is Granatstein, The Students, 236–276. Cf. also Haran, “R.  Abraham of Kalisk and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady,” 399–428. 5 Cf. J. G.Weiss, “Rabbi Abraham Kalisker’s Concept”, see this volume.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

211

letter.6 Weiss himself noted that the letter appeared to cover many different topics and theorized that it originally consisted of two different parts.7 Practically speaking, of course, it makes no real difference if we are speaking about one single letter by R.  Kalisker or several different ones. Far more interesting is Weiss’s explanation of what he found written in those letters. Weiss was of the opinion that R.  Kalisker followed the path of R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk to a certain extent,8 but his principal 6 Letters from the rabbis of Eretz Yisra’el have been printed in different collections. I have chosen Barnai, Igrot, as he brought together in one volume all the letters that appeared in different places through the year his book was published. The boundaries of the letters are not always clear. Nor are the openings and closings of the letters always extant. Weiss considers the R.  Kalisker’s letters as they appear in the Peri ha-Aretz, concentrating on the letter that begins there on 31b with the words “Now I have come along the short and long path.” That letter, however, ends in that book neither with R. Kalisker’s signature nor with the regular formula used [there] to mark the end of letters, the Hebrew letters ‘ayin and kaf, standing for ‘ad kan (“until here”), for which reason Weiss went on to include the material that follows as a continuation of the letter. In Barnai, Igrot, they are printed as two distinct letters: no. 50 and no. 56. In letter 50, Barnai copies the version found in Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, Liqqutei Amarim (I used B. Shmerler’s edition, New York, 1961–1912 [5722], original edition, Lviv, 1910–1911 [5611]), which is missing the section that was printed in the Peri ha-Aretz. That letter is found in many different collections and manuscripts. In the Birkat ha-Aretz, the second part of Chibbat ha-Aretz, ed. Barukh David Hakohen (Kahana) (Jerusalem, 1968 [5768], based on the edition published in Jerusalem by Y. D. Frumkin, 1903–1904 [5664]), §337, a different text of this letter is printed. (Note that there are two sections marked as §337 in the Birkat ha-Aretz, of which the reference here is to the first.) At the end of the section, the reason for the difference is explained: “and I instruct the scribes to copy two or three copies of the letters, one exactly just like the other, and to send them through three different places, since who knows which will end up in the hands of the addressee?” This version of the letters is cited in several manuscripts. In other manuscripts, however, both versions are found together. Barnai, Igrot, 56, quotes the version printed in the Chibbat ha-Aretz, 64b. The letter may be found in the Liqqutei Amarim, letter 32, and in various manuscripts. In this essay, Hebrew-style numbers that appear in parentheses indicate the number of the letter in Barnai’s collection. 7 Weiss, Studies in Eastern European Jewish Mysticism, 156. See also Gries, ““From Myth to Ethos,” 141. 8 The reason is that Weiss attributed Kalisker’s letter, written, apparently, in 1780– 1781 [5541] to the community of Byshki. This letter may be found in the following collections: Iggeret ha-Qodesh (Mirošov, 1793–1794 [5554]); Liqqutei Amarim, letter 2; Chibbat ha-Aretz, 50a; Sefer Imrei Tzaddiqim (Zhitomyr, 1900), 52; Sefer Me’ah She‘arim, ed. H. A. Bichovsky and Ch. M. Heilman (Berdichev, 1912–1913 [5673]), 20b; Barnai, Igrot, 17; National Library of Israel manuscripts 8903 (letter 5), 8°1467

212

C. Reader’s Guide

point is that the spiritual path of R. Kalisker was as revolutionary as his thought was intensely innovative. As Weiss’s suggests, R. Kalisker’s principal innovation had to do with the concepts of unio mystica, the reality of divine providence of human events9 (in which context he distinguished between the minor and major versions of providence,10 called respectively the states of qatnut and gadlut), and the attainability of the state of nothingness. Indeed, Weiss argues this latter concept became identified for R. Kalisker with the state of intense humility both on the social and moral levels, and was specifically not related to activity on the ecstatic or mystical plane.11

(33a), the beginning of 28°6299 (ms. Kahana, film no. B281), and the beginning of 24°1379 (ms. Kiev). It may also be found in a manuscript currently in the possession of Dr. Elchanan Reiner in Jerusalem, 48b. In none of the places where the text of this letter appears does it have a signature. It is, however, attributed to R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk in the Imrei Tzaddiqim and in Barnai. The heading in Chibbat ha-Aretz attributes the text to R. Kalisker. There, however, there is no indication to whom the letter was addressed and the congregation in Byshki is not mentioned at all. In the manuscripts, the letter is attributed to R. Kalisker. In the Mei’ah She‘arim, the author of the letter is not identified and the heading is generic and non-committal: “A precious letter from our rabbis, of blessed memory, who [reside] in the Holy Land, may it be rebuilt and reestablished speedily in our day, amen.” It is difficult to know to whom the letter is attributed in the Liqqutei Amarim, where it is appears after a long letter by R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk that includes a short addendum by R. Kalisker (letter 1). The heading there is “the words of the aforementioned rabbi to the members of the holy congregation of Byshki.” There is no way to know to whom exactly the phrase “the aforementioned rabbi” was meant to point—whether to R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, the principal author of the letter, or to the last person to sign the letter, which would be R. Kalisker. In the first edition of the Iggeret ha-Qodesh, a section of the letter is attributed to R. Kalisker; in other editions of this tract, it appears among texts by R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk. 9 See Weiss, Studies in Eastern European Jewish Mysticism, 158. 10 Ibid., 159. 11 As Weiss writes: “It is characteristic of R. Abraham of Kalisk that when he speaks of attaining the state of AYIN, he thinks of it not in its ecstatic meaning but as an attitude of social humility plain and simple. . . . By AYIN he does not mean the mystical AYIN and by ANAVAH he does not mean ecstatic self-abasement” (ibid., 157). Cf. Decro’s comment, “The thinking of the Kalisker was examined in an essay by Joseph Weiss that demonstrates how mystical theology turns into mystic sociology” (in J. Decro, “Love of Neighbor in Later Jewish Mysticism,” Response 8, nos. 1–2 [1982]: 76). Even Piekarz thinks that “in general, devequt in Hasidic writings does not bear mystic meaning” (Mendel Piekarz, Bein Idiologiah li-Metzi’ut [Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1994], p. 178).

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

213

According to Weiss, the approach of R. Kalisker’s teacher, the Maggid of Mezrich, to mystic and ecstatic matters is divested of its mystic and ecstatic elements in his student’s understanding and becomes instead a way of negotiation of the way of life that links people to each in terms of their social relationships. Indeed, it was Weiss’s opinion that intrapersonal relationships themselves served as the axis around which rotated R. Kalisker’s approach to Judaism itself, particularly when layered over with his sermonic calls to a simple faith.12 According to Weiss, R. Kalisker believed that the state of qatnut—literally, “constrictedness,” but here used to denote the state of falling away from a state of ongoing communion with God—can be exploited by individual seeking to deepen their emotional ties to the members of their own community. In R. Kalisker’s thought, then, qatnut is essentially a positive condition—according to Weiss’s interpretation—because it enables individuals to seek communion with members of their own community, the state labelled by R.  Kalisker as dibbuq chaverim [literally “a communion of friends], which he understood to derive directly from the commandment to love “your neighbor as yourself ” (Leviticus 19:18). Weiss explains that we are dealing here with a group effort to create a renewed sense of unity and security, one that specifically exists to do battle with the loneliness of the individual. Social relationships thus grant the individual human-made protection and shelter.13 According to Weiss, though, we are not speaking here about the individual cleaving unto a tzaddiq, which is understood to constitute merely a single example of dibbuq chaverim.14 According to his theory, dibbuq chaverim is something like a primitive form of group therapy.15 Indeed, according to Weiss’s theory R.  Kalisker offers this notion of dibbuq chaverim as a kind of “medication” intended for use when an individual enters into the state of qatnut and appears far more interested in the identification of the emotive values that underlie the state of dibbuq chaverim than in the creation of a contemplative context in which to

12 Weiss, Studies in Eastern European Jewish Mysticism, 157–158. 13 Ibid., 159–160. 14 Ibid., 161. 15 As Weiss wrote, “. . . which almost amounts to an early attempt at group therapy” (ibid., 162).

214

C. Reader’s Guide

seek out a state of communion with God. Indeed, for R. Kalisker, dibbuq chaverim actually takes the place of divine communion.16 In R.  Kalisker’s letter to the community in Bushki,17 Weiss sees a sermonic invitation to therapy. The act of revealing even the most private secrets to friends (in fact, a kind of confession)18 constitutes a deeply meaningful psychotherapeutic act as the individual experiences a deeply emotional lightening through the act of confessing “for the act of speaking itself exerts a salvific effect.”19 Weiss thus removes R. Kalisker’s teachings from the mystic realm and places them instead in the social context or, more precisely, categorizes them as part of his effort to understand the role of the individual in society and specifically the emotional and psychological aspects of that role. In Weiss’s view, then, the teachings of R. Kalisker are specifically about saving individuals from isolation and granting them both relief and psychological defense though the pursuit of individual or group therapy.

III. Gries finds in R. Kalisker’s thought an echo of the erotic myth featured in Plato’s Symposium.20 This motif appears in rabbinic literature as well, 16 “It yet seems as if for all practical purposes devequt with one’s fellow has replaced devequt with God” (ibid., 164). Support for Weiss’s comment can be found in Piekarz: “Not once do we find the use of the word devequt solely to denote a social bond” (Bein Idiologiah li-Metzi’ut, 158). Regarding the R.  Kalisker’s demand for social involvement, cf. also Dinur, Be-Mifneh ha-Dorot, 220. 17 Which was apparently written by R.  Kalisker even though Weiss attributes it to R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk. See above, note 8. 18 See Weiss, Studies in Eastern European Jewish Mysticism, 165–166. 19 Ibid., 166. The text cited comes from Barnai, Igrot, 36. The first part, the short part, of the letter is attributed to R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, whereas the second part, which is the longer one, is attributed to R. Kalisker. Barnai gives the text taken from the Chibbat ha-Aretz, 55a. Piekarz follows in Weiss’s footsteps (without mentioning him in this context) and writes that “the mutual confessions [known to us from the rituals of the musar yeshivot of a few generations after his day] are, according to the simple meaning of his words, a kind of mutual catharsis.” Cf. also Piekarz, Bein Idiologiah li-Metzi’ut, 179–198. 20 Plato, The Symposium, cited [in the Hebrew original of this essay] from Kitvei Aplaton, trans. Joseph Gerhard Liebes, vol. 2 (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1956–1957 [5717]), 91–155. Cf. also Gries, “From Myth to Ethos.”

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

215

for example, in Targum Yonatan to Genesis 2:7, which reads “And God created Adam with two [competing] instincts,”21 and was then developed subsequently in the kabbalistic thought that underlies the Zohar, the Kabbalah of R.  Isaac Luria (d. 1572), and later kabbalistic thought. In Hasidic sources, however, Gries finds this line of thought singled out to describe various kinds of yearning on the broad quotidian scale [and] the camaraderie between the tzaddiq and his followers (as well as between all the followers themselves) to the extent that such sentiments actually served to draw members of the wider community to join those followers lest the latter end up as a closed elitist group. This yearning crystallized in the course of the development of the Hasidic community to the point that an independent ethos was created, one capable of breaking down barriers between members of the community. . . . R. Abraham Kalisker was the very embodiment of this new process in which the myth was popularized to the point of becoming the embodiment of the ethos that animated these Hasidic communities.22

Gries agrees with Weiss that in the teachings of R. Kalisker “the goal of communion with the divine was transferred from being something to do with the upper realms of divine existence to something pertinent to the intimate life together of members of the community.” But he also notes that “R. Abraham insists in his writings, as did his own teachers, on the reality of the kind of mystic yearning connected with divine communion that can be attained by cutting oneself off from gross physical reality—both the kind connected with things and the kind connected with people, and also the kind related to this-worldly values.” In this regard, Gries wonders “how it can follow that one can move naturally from the level of yearning for the intimacy of friendship, which has at its core the notion of breaking down the barriers that divide people, to the level of yearning for personal divine communion that is wholly about self-separation from society and from all this-worldly matters.”23 And even though Gries clearly sees as inherent in Hasidism the double aspect that proposes both a mystical bond (that is, with God) and an obligatory 21 Cf. bBerakhot 61a and Genesis Rabbah 14:4, ed. Theodor and Albeck, 128. 22 Gries, “From Myth to Ethos,” 124–126 (in this current volume, 90-128–Ed.) 23 Ibid., 133–134.

216

C. Reader’s Guide

social bond, he nonetheless understands the bond of social obligation to be more important one in R. Kalisker’s thinking, as well as in Hasidism in general, because: it is difficult to imagine that a movement could have grown to encompass a majority of Jews in Poland and Belarus if its principal demand has been to embrace alienation from the world as an act of communion [that is, with God]. . . . Indeed, it was this new process of constructing a broadbased social ethos built on the elements of the [standard Hasidic] myth that drew people in. And although there surely were chasidim, and R. Kalisker among them, who retained a deep connection to traditional mystic yearning, their principal focus was on intrapersonal involvement to the extent that concern and affection for others came to embody this new [Hasidic] ethos.24

Gries does indeed think, as did Weiss, that the essence of R. Kalisker’s yearning was for social intimacy. This desire derives, says Gries, from the physical break from his Diaspora community that R. Kalisker experienced and also from his efforts to continue to lead his congregation back in Europe while he himself lived in Israel.25 However, Gries differs from Weiss in his willingness to find the roots of R. Kalisker’s teaching in the thinking of the Maggid of Mezrich, stressing that R. Kalisker “develops an erotic mythos in his writings that had already been enunciated in his day with respect to the relationship between a tzaddiq and his community, as well as between all the members of the community themselves.” (There is, in fact, no distinction between the ties that bind the tzaddiq to his community and the ties that bind the members of the community to each other.)26 The erotic myth is thus anchored in the teachings of the Maggid, who explained the talmudic expression to the effect that all Jews are responsible [‘arevim] for each other (bShavuot 39a) to mean that all Jews are intertwined [me‘uravim] with each other (Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §132). And so does Gries write specifically in his essay: It seems reasonable to suppose that R.  Kalisker was one of those who expounded this new Hasidic ethos both in his deeds and his writings. 24 Ibid., 134. 25 Ibid., 119 and 145, and see below, at the end of sections V and XI. 26 Ibid., 133.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

217

This ethos embodied the erotic mythos in the Hasidic community, and its primary proponents included R.  Abraham Kalisker’s teachers, the founders of Hasidism, and foremost among them R. Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezrich, who served as a living example and as a role model for the members of the fellowships of friends founded by his students, and R. Kalisker among them.27

IV. It seems obvious that both Weiss and Gries were dependent upon the earlier work of Gershom Scholem. In this regard, though, it is crucial to recall that Scholem was convinced that Hasidism effected a popularization of kabbalistic thought by moving such thinking into the realm of the social and the personal, the anthropocentric. In his opinion, this popularization was necessary since the Hasidic movement specifically sought “to bring the work of Kabbalah to the masses.”28 And, indeed, the first step towards the successful dissemination of Hasidism itself among the masses was the neutralization of the messianic impulse in Lurianic Kabbalah.29 In taking this step, Hasidism altered the definition of tiqqun from the repair of the cosmic realms to the personal improvement of the individual chasid. According to Scholem, Hasidic thought took seriously the basic kabbalistic concepts of divine communion and spiritual intentionality and interpreted them primarily as emotional values, so that basic kabbalistic ideas were transformed within Hasidism into personal ethical values.30 Within the teachings of Hasidism Scholem saw psychology displacing theosophy, writing that “mysteries of the divine realm appear [in Hasidic texts] dressed up in the garb of mystic 27 Ibid., 146. 28 Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schoken Books, 1946; orig. ed. 1941), 327–328 and 339–340. The introductions from Scholem’s chapter on Hasidism appear in Hebrew in the translation of Tzvia Nardi in Perakim be-Torat ha-Chasidut u-ve-Toldoteha, ed. Abraham Rubenstein (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1974–1975 [5735]), 31–52. Cf. also Gries, “From Myth to Ethos,” 120. 29 Scholem, Major Trends [1946], 329–330. See also idem, “The Neutralization of the Messianic Element in Early Hasidism,” in his The Messianic Idea in Judaism [1971], 176–202. 30 Idem, “Devequt o Hitqashrut Intimit,” 339.

218

C. Reader’s Guide

psychology. Indeed, the descent of the individual into the inmost depths of his soul became the precise way for an individual to transcend all the worlds [of the divine realm] .  .  . so that each stage of endless cosmic development that characterizes the theosophical world becomes parallel to a given spiritual bearing . . . and so does Kabbalah become a tool of self-knowledge and psychological analysis.”31 To his way of thinking, then, the chasidim are “ethical mystics” who discovered the ideal path towards communal organization.32 It seems clear that Scholem would never have come to these conclusions had he not accepted Buber’s theory that Hasidism represents “Kabbalah become ethos.”33 Indeed, if he had not followed Buber in transferring the essential kernel of Hasidic teaching from the realm of kabbalistic theosophy to the realm of mystic anthropology, he would surely have come to different conclusions. Had he not seen in Hasidism a movement that excelled in mystic psychology, which turns Kabbalah into a tool for self-knowledge, psychological analysis, and curative potency,34 he would never have opened the door to the psychologization and the sociologization of Hasidic ideas.

V. Hasidism oscillates between two foci, the mystical and the social one, and integrates one into the other. There is no doubt that Hasidism, had it focused on social issues, would never have gone from a province of isolated mystics to a mass movement. The members of the early Hasidic community were bound by a sense of empathetic mutual responsibility that galvanized the nascent Hasidic groups and distinguished them from their environment. But Hasidism would not have succeeded in conquering the hearts of masses of Jews in Eastern Europe had it not 31 Idem, Major Trends [1946], 340–341, and cf. idem, “Ha-Bilti Muda u-Musag: ‘Kadmut ha-Sekhel’ be-Sifrut ha-Chasidut,” in Devarim be-Go, 358–360. 32 Idem, Major Trends [1946], 343. 33 Ibid., 342; idem, “Peirusho shel Martin Buber le-Chasidut,” in Devarim be-Go, 364. Cf. Martin Buber, Be-Fardes ha-Chasidut, 106. Cf. also Gries, “From Myth to Ethos,” 120. 34 Scholem, Devarim be-Go, 339, and see above, notes 32 and 33.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

219

also represented to those very masses the possibility of exchanging their earthly concerns for spiritual ones. The Hasidic teachers did not follow the traditional path of mystics who tended to restrict the mystical experience to themselves alone: the tzaddiqim shared their experiences with their flock and revealed secrets to all who would learn them, and to such an extent that what would otherwise have been understood as private mystical experiences became a group experience. Thus, the social ethos at the core of the Hasidic movement developed alongside “regular” kabbalistic endeavor and was anchored in kabbalistic (religious) tradition so deeply that it would be wrong to cast doubt on the depth of the connection that existed between Hasidism and older mystical sources. Even if the core concepts of kabbalistic thought took on new meanings in Hasidism; the mystical meaning that flowed forth—albeit in a novel form within Hasidic texts—was rooted in religious interests and no others.35 The teachers of Hasidism did not always display the same balance between these different aspects of the larger enterprise in their leadership decisions.36 There were, for example, tzaddiqim who stressed the concept of mystical longing in their teaching, while others devoted themselves to the social side of things. Even the Maggid of Mezrich, the very embodiment of the spiritual aspect of Hasidism, did not turn away from 35 See Shmuel Ettinger, “Ha-Hanhagah ha-Chasidit be-Itzuvah,” in Dat ve-Chevrah be-Toldot Yisra’el u-ve-Toldot ha-‘Amim, ed. A Feldman and M. Stern (Jerusalem: Ha-Chevrah ha-Historit ha-Yisra’elit, 5725 [1964/1965]), 121–134, also available in Perakim be-Torat ha-Chasidut u-ve-Toldoteha, ed. Abraham Rubenstein (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1974–1975 [5735]), 227–240. Cf. also Rachel Elior, “Ha-Zikah she-bein Kabbalah le-Chasidut: Retzifut u-Temurah,” in Divrei ha-Kongress ha-‘Olami ha-Tishi·li-Mada‘ei ha-Yahadut, vol. 3 (Jerusalem: Ha-Iggud ha-‘Olami li-Mada‘ei ha-Yahadut, 1985–1986 [5746]), 107–114; eadem, “‘Melo’ Kol ha-Aretz Kevodo’ ve-‘Kol Adam’—Bein Techiyah Ruchanit li-Temurah Chevratit be-Rei’shit ha-Chasidut,” in Alei Shefer: Mechqarim be-Sifrut ha-Hagut ha-Yhudit, ed. Moshe Halamish (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1989–1990 [5750]), 29–40; Emanuel Etkes, “‘Ha-BeSh”T ha-Histori’: Bein Rekonstruktziah Le-Dikanonizatziah,” a book review, Tarbiz 66 (1996–1997 [5757]): 438. See also below, section XII. 36 Ada Rapoport-Albert, “God and the Zaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship,” History of Religions 18, no. 4 (1979): 296–325; Rachel Elior, “Between Yesh and Ayin: The Doctrine of the Zaddik in the Works of Jacob Isaac, the Seer of Lublin,” in Jewish History: Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky, ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert and Steven J. Zipperstein (London: Peter Halban, 1988), pp. 393-455; Emanuel Etkes, “Hasidism as a Movement: The First Stage,” in Hasidism: Continuity or Innovation, ed. Bezalel Safran (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), 17–22; and cf. below, note 64.

220

C. Reader’s Guide

considering the relationship between the tzaddiq and his Hasidic followers or the responsibility that tzaddiq bore towards them. The concept of leadership as a kind of spiritual mantle crystallized in the thinking of the Maggid’s students, in whose works we can see the concept of the tzaddiq growing from a mere theological ideal to the image of an actual leader with real social responsibilities. The spiritual elite accepted the responsibility of acting together with other members of the congregation on the metaphysical plane as well upon the plane of social reality. For his part, R. Kalisker was primarily interested in his own spiritual life and in the spiritual lives of the small community of his followers; there is no specific reason to imagine that he hoped to interest large numbers of newcomers in joining his circle. Indeed, just the opposite is the case: if anything, he feared having too many followers lest unworthy individuals appear among the newcomers (see section XII below). And he spelled this out clearly: I fear a burgeoning number of chasidim, lest, heaven forfend, the increase be part of a plot devised by the demonic realm [literally, by the “other side”] to dilute the wheatgerm in [an overwhelming amount of] chaff, for the bnei ‘aliyah [the true mystics] are [meant to be] few in number [based on a passage preserved in the Talmud at bSukkah 45b]—one perhaps per city or two in a given family—and this [lesson] is particularly germane in a period of time in which falsehood abounds. (64)37

Nonetheless, we see evidence of a sense of social responsibility in R. Kalisker’s behavior. Indeed, all the passages in his letters to overseas 37 Similar language can be found in the words of R.  Ze’ev Wolf of Zhitomir: “I saw the bnei ‘aliyah, and they were few in number; how could it occur to anyone to say that they are sufficiently powerful to perfect their souls [to the extent necessary] to conduct their worship even from the physical stuff of the lowest layers [that is, of being] . . . but [the reality is that] not all who wish to take up the name can do so, for not every brain can bear such a thing” (in his Or ha-Me’ir [Koretz, 1637–1638 (5598), rimzei tazria, 85c–d). On the blank page before the title page in one of the copies that was in his possession, Gershom Scholem noted that there are two editions of the book Or ha-Me’ir that appeared in Koretz in the same year, 5598. In one of them, the pages are numbered consecutively through page 260, whereas in the other the pagination for the sections covering Genesis and Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, and Deuteronomy are paginated separately. I myself have discovered yet another edition from that same year, one in which the page numbers run consecutively through 208.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

221

chasidim that treat day-to-day matters attest to that sense of responsibility: they describe the difficulties of life in Israel and solicit funds to support its residents in order to enable the community in Israel to devote themselves wholly to the service of God without having to abandon either the study of Torah or the worship of God. More to the point, R. Kalisker was clearly anxious to preserve the sense of comradeship between chasidim, making specific reference to the overwhelming sense of anxiety he felt when considering the “inciteful, accusatory comments made by some Torah scholars [that is, against others]” (46),38 “because even disputes formally undertaken ‘for the sake of heaven’ are not to be considered positive features [of communal life].” And R.  Kalisker devoted himself personally to keeping the peace as well: “I have drawn a circle and will not step outside it until there be reestablished [in our midst] a true and trusting peace of pacific tranquility” (ibid.). All that being the case, one who looks at R. Kalisker’s path solely from the psychological or sociological point of view, or even from both at once, will not only miss the mark and, in so doing, diminish the importance of this tzaddiq, but will also be missing a central point of his thought. After all, the call for social intimacy in R. Kalisker’s thought (which he specifically called dibbuq chaverim, the intimacy of friendship—see below in section X) has nothing at all to do with his worry about the existential wellbeing of the individual or the community. The sole goal of that specific version of intimacy, in fact, is contemplative, focused as it is on escorting the human being into a state of ongoing communion with the Creator. R.  Kalisker’s demands in that regard did not flow from social or political impulses, but solely from religious ones.39 In that spirit, that 38 In Barnai, Igrot, this letter appears twice, once as letter 46 and once as letter 66. Regarding the opposition of R. Kalisker to disputes between chasidim, see letters 56, 64, 72, and 76. 39 See above, note 25. Gries posits that R. Kalisker’s sermon regarding social intimacy was formulated “so as to attempt to prevent the rise back home of a new leader, R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, with whom R. Kalisker was in disagreement.” However, R.  Kalisker also calls for dibbuq chaverim in all those letters in which he calls to overseas chasidim to be obedient to R. Shne’ur Zalman. This continued even after the R. Shne’ur Zalman’s leadership of those overseas chasidim was an established fact. R. Kalisker “opposed” R. Shne’ur Zalman only after the publication of the Sefer shel Beinonim in 1636–1637 [5597]. Cf. also R. Kalisker’s letters from the years 1789–1790 [5550] (letter 56), 1791–1792 [5552] (letter 58), and 1792–1793 [5553] (letter 59). Cf. also Haran, “R. Abraham of Kalisk and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady.”

222

C. Reader’s Guide

he taught that dibbuq chaverim cannot be achieved without a sense of closeness and empathy between members of the community. Indeed, only within a circle of intimates made one by bonds of psychic unity “as though they were a single individual” can dibbuq chaverim be achieved: And so must an individual accustom himself to allow into his heart a sense of love of comrades that abides until his final breath and to work assiduously on this [effort] until the bonds of psychic oneness between that individual and the other members of the community become so real that they become [as] one person in whom resides [the earthly manifestion of] the four-letter divine name in such a way that they are [constantly] influenced by God’s many promises of salvation and comfort and are thus elevated, both physically and spiritually, so that [as suggested by the turn of phrase at Proverbs 11:25, God’s] “blessing becomes the marrow in their bones.”

The general principle seems to be that, although it is not possible to ignore the social impulse in R. Kalisker’s thought, the principal impetus behind his approach was his longing for spiritual wholeness.

VI. To characterize R. Kalisker’s teaching as a call to the kind of simple faith that becomes the foundation of religious life—as any number of researchers and historians of Hasidism do40—does not exhaust R.  Kalisker’s teaching. Again and again, R.  Kalisker returns to a call to deep-seated conviction that is not a simple faith at all, rather an invitation to mystic worship. Indeed, R.  Kalisker’s call for a deep understanding of the principles of Hasidic thought, when he speaks about matters related to faith, follows the Maggid of Mezrich, who saw in all things testimony to the immanent presence of God in the world and who called upon his followers “to believe with complete conviction, and without any ambivalence, that the entire world is filled with God’s glory [cf. Isaiah 6:3] and

40 See above, note 1.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

223

that there exists divine vitality in all things” (Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §146).41 Nor will any who read the few surviving examples of R. Kalisker’s writing be able to move past the impression that before them lies the work of an intense mystic labor, prepared for a movement that was wholly about religious renewal as crystallized in the academy of the Maggid of Mezrich. This movement publicly proclaimed the religious vitality of the individual, which found expression in that individual’s wish to break through the boundaries of perceived reality as part of his personal longing for tactile intimacy with the divine realm—the sole realm that actually exists, as opposed to the illusions of the physical world! And the path to this end the early Hasidic teachers saw to lie in the act of turning away willfully from mundane values, which led to the denial of the ultimate reality of the physical world. The call to cleave unto God—“to bring oneself near to God (Chesed le-Abraham, parshat Chayyei Sarah)42—became in Hasidic circles the most important goal of the mystic life. This act of cleaving unto God most of all demanded from the individual a readiness to deny the reality of all existence and the validity of sensory perception, to move beyond what one can merely see with one’s eyes and instead to accept that the only truly real existent was the imperceptible cloak of the divine being (in Hasidic usage, this aspect of existence is called “Nothingness”).43 But above all else, Hasidism demanded that individuals relate with absolute 41 See below, note 54. 42 Cf. “his thought cleaved on high” (Tzava’at ha-RiVa”Sh [Brooklyn, 1990–1991 (5751), following Zolkiev, 1943–1944 (5704), original edition n.p., 1793–1794 (5554)], §5, 1b), “he must draw himself towards great devequt” (Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §134), and many other examples. See also below, note 45. 43 On the notion of nothingness (ayin) and the dialectic between nothingness and presence (yesh), see the various passages listed in the index of the Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, s.v. ayin, bechinat ayin, and middat ayin. Cf. Gershom Scholem, Pirkei Yesod, 252–253; Joseph Weiss, “Via Passiva in Early Hasidism,” in Studies in Eastern European Jewish Mysticism, 69–94; Tishby and Dan, “Torat ha-Chasidut,” in Entziklopedia ‘Ivrit, vol. 17, col. 808; Rivka Schatz, Ha-Chasidut ke-Mistikah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967–1968 [5728]), as indicated in the index, 188; Rachel Elior, Torat ha-Elohut ba-Dor ha-Sheni shel Chasidut ChaBa”D (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1971–1972 [5742]), 48–50 and 125–133; eadem, “Between Yesh and Ayin,” 192–193; Arthur Green, “Hasidism: Discovery and Retreat,” in The Other Side of God, ed. P. Berger (New York: Anchor Books, 1981), 104–130.

224

C. Reader’s Guide

psychic equanimity to the physical and social aspects of their lives, which in Hasidic circles was known as hishtavvut, the impetus to experience pleasure specifically so as to be able to banish from one’s heart all desire rooted in the physical world and imprison it in a solid prison (Chesed le-Abraham, parshat Pinechas): “I set [shiviti] the Almighty before me at all times” [Psalms 16:8]. [In this verse,] the word shiviti means to set oneself in a state of hishtavvut such that that one relates to every event that befalls oneself with equanimity— and this should be so whether one is being praised by others or scorned by them—and that one relates to the world similarly in all circumstances. (Tzava’at ha-RIVa”Sh, §2, 1a)44

The goal of the whole undertaking was to burst through the strictures of time and space in order to meet God and to cleave unto the Divine. Hasidism champions the act of cleaving unto God (in Hebrew, devequt) and communing with the hidden divine element that vivifies visible reality, which finally leads to the apperception of the God who exists behind the various divine masks and garments. This act is the central axis around which Hasidic mysticism revolves, the epitome of Hasidic worship. Of course, not all strains of Hasidism are cut from precisely the same cloth, but nonetheless, we can say that the notion of divine imminence, the yearning for hishtavvut, and the quest for devequt45 collectively become the glue that holds together the various streams within Hasidism and makes them all parts of the same larger undertaking. The quest for devequt especially requires of the individual, in addition to his willing 44 Cf. the following note. 45 On hishtavut and devequt and their place in Hasidism, see Gershom Scholem, “Devequt o Hitqashrut Intimit,” 325–350; Schatz, Ha-Chasidut ke-Mistika, as indicated in the index, 188–189; Weiss, Mechqarim be-Chasidut Bratzlav, 87–95; Tishby and Dan, “Torat ha-Chasidut,” col. 775; Rapoport-Albert, “God and the Zaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship,” 296–325; Elior, Torat ha-Elohut ba-Dor ha-Sheni, especially 178–243; eadem, Ha-BeSh”T ve-Rei’shit ha-Tenu‘ah ha-Chasidit (Jerusalem: Open University, 1988), especially §4; eadem, “Bein ‘Hitpashtut ha-Gashmiyut’ le-vein ‘ha-Hitpashtut [sic] ha-Ahavah Gam be-Gashmiyut’: Ha-Kittuv bein ha-Tefisah ha-Ruchanit le-vein ha-Metzi’ut ha-Chevratit ba-Havayah ha-Chasidit,” in Minhag Ashkenaz u-Folin: Sefer Yovel le-Hone Shmeruk, ed. Israel Bartal, Chava Turiansky, and Ezra Mendelssohn (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1993), §3; eadem, Torat Achdut ha-Hafakhim (Jerusalem, 1992–1993 [5793]), 116–175; eadem, “Between Yesh and Ayin,” 167–218. For references to immanentism, see note 54 below.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

225

withdrawal from the affairs of the physical world, a maximal level of concentration and intense psychological focus. Importantly, the opportunities to achieve devequt are very few, so that the contemplative individual cannot remain permanently at that level of focused concentration and physical exertion, and must eventually fall away from the state of devequt, depart from the state of unity, and return to the state of separatedness: “and this is the meaning of the verse [that begins], ‘If you should go out to war’ [Deuteronomy 20:1]: if you should go out—you, the individual go out to seek devequt with God, you will surely come to war, that is to say that you will come to the world of separatedness, where war is constantly waged, as is well known” (Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §15). The contemplative individual swings back and forth between the state of devequt and its absent; these two poles are states of gadlut and qatnut, expanded and constricted consciousness. “And ‘constricted’ has that name because the individual is cast back to [and actual] state of ‘constricted’ characterized by a restriction in thought that can [potentially] lead to [the attainment of the state of] Nothingness, which lesson needs to be considered very carefully” (Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §173).46

VII. The philosophy of R.  Abraham Kalisker that found its expression in several pages of the book, Chesed le-Abraham, is anchored in the teachings of the Maggid of Mezrich. In fact, nowhere in the sermonic material included in that book R. Kalisker departs from the teachings of his teachers, the Maggid of Mezrich and R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk. Perhaps, R. Kalisker’s lessons—condensed in his book into a mere sixteen pages—lack the sharpness and the brilliance that characterize the Maggid’s writing in his Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, but nevertheless, at least in general terms, R. Kalisker allows no deviation at all from anything his teacher, the Maggid, ever said in his presence, and neither does he deviate from the teachings of his teacher-colleague, R.  Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk. Sometimes, R. Kalisker even cites the Maggid verbatim, using one of the Maggid’s parables to illustrate a lesson of his own. 46 Cf. Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer’s interpretation of the material there.

226

C. Reader’s Guide

For example, this happens when R. Abraham writes about the kabbalistic concepts of tzimtzum and the emanation of various versions of the existent universe downwards from level to level until it reaches the world [of consciousness] called Embodiment—‘assiyah (Chesed le-Abraham, parshat Lekh Lekha, sermon no. 2)47—R. Kalisker then utilizes the Maggid’s parable about the rabbi who taught a disciple of limited mental ability (ibid.).48 Other examples would be R.  Kalisker’s lesson that “the whole world was created only for the glory of God, so that God’s kingdom could be [through it] revealed” (ibid., sermon no. 2)49 or his lesson to the effect that “the whole point of creating Adam in the image of God was to intertwine all existence from the bottom [that is, of the emanative spectrum] to its topmost manifestation so that all existents have the ability to ascend to their [celestial] roots, to the will of the Divine” (ibid., parshat Mishpatim)50 so as to “return all that is to its [cosmic] root, which is [the stage of cosmic existence called] Nothingness and there, in the context of the great Nothingness, to experience growth” (ibid., parshat Ki Tissa).51 Yet another example would be R. Kalisker’s lesson that the tzaddiqim are bound to each other with supernal insight that exceeds mere virtue and exists on an extratemporal plane (ibid., parshat Chayyei Sarah).52 And these are but a few examples. R.  Kalisker’s metaphysics includes two important elements characteristic of the Maggid’s understanding of the nature of the Godhead: tzimtzum “not simply understood” and divine imminence. Tzimtzum, the Lurianic doctrine according to which the creation of the universe was preceded by the self-contraction of the divine realm in order to create a place that was not God in which the universe could exist, becomes an act of mercy “because [it made possible] receptive capability [on the part of Creation itself]” (ibid., parshat Shoftim). Tzimtzum is thus 47 Cf. Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §72 and the passages indicated in the index, s.v. hishtalshelut and ‘olamot. 48 Ibid., §1, 101, 122, and the passages indicated in the index, s.v. mishlei av. 49 Cf. “and this world [constitutes] a need of the Most High for there can be no king without a people” (ibid., §118). 50 Cf. “for the ultimate point of the creation of humankind was so that it could raise up the worlds to their [supernal] root [source], that is to say: that they return them to the [state] of nothingness [in which they existed] originally” (ibid., §66). 51 Cf. ibid., §30, part 6. 52 Cf. ibid., §§69, 72, 86, and 110.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

227

understood as suggestive simultaneously of divine hiding and revealing: God hides the divine light and then creates all intelligible things, which together comprise this world of ours: indeed, the world, had the divine light not been hidden, would have itself ceased to exist and been returned to its original non-existent state—for no existent thing could have come into being if subjected to the full force of divine light, in which creation would then have been bathed. And thus the dialectics of tzimtzum in Hasidic thought combines an act of divine withdrawal with an act of revelation:53 And behold: if this act of bestowal of the divine essence [Hebrew: shefa‘] had ensued in the fullness of its might and as an expression of the unbridled desire of the divine Emanator [to create], nothing created could have withstood the force of this essence. And thus was it by virtue of the fact that the Emanator with mercy and compassion—and as a function of God’s simple will—compressed the shefa‘ as it traveled down from realm to realm so as to render it possible for each successive receptor to receive it. (Ibid., haftarah, parshat Shoftim)

Thus, the Hasidic belief in the immanent presence of the Godhead in the world is based on the understanding of tzimtzum not as the withdrawal of God from the world in order to create some empty space in which a world distinct from the divine realm could be created, but as an act of divine mercy directed toward God’s creatures. The divine essence, spread out evenly among all things and at all times, exists in such a way that no 53 Regarding tzimtzum in Hasidism, see the sources listed in the Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov in the index, s.v. tzimtzum, 380; cf. also the sources indicated in Or ha-Torah le-R.  Dov Ber mi-Mezrich (Brooklyn, 1985–1986 [5746]; bound together with the Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov), in the index, 47; Levi Yitzchaq of Berdichev, Or ha-Emet (New York, 1959–1960 [5720], original edition, Husiatyn, 1898–1899 [5659]), 20a, 62a, et passim. Cf. Mordekhai Teitelbaum, Ha-Rav mi-Liady u-Mifleget ChaBa”D, vol. 2 (Warsaw: Toshiyah, 1912–1913 [5673]), 43–61 (containing also a sketch of the dispute regarding the doctrine of tzimtzum); Scholem, Major Trends [1946], 348; Tishby and Dan, “Torat ha-Chasidut,” cols. 772–773; Schatz, ha-Chasidut ke-Mistika, especially 122–128; eadem, “Anti-spiritualizm be-Chasidut: ‘iyyunim be-Torat Shne’ur Zalman mi-Liady,” Molad 20 (1961–1963 [5762–5763]): 517–520; Elior, Torat ha-Elohut ba-Dor ha-Sheni, 61–77, 182n.20; eadem, “Ha-Zikah she-bein Kabbalah le-Chasidut,” 109–113; and eadem, Torat Achdut ha-Hafakhim, 79–89. Regarding the roots of the notion of tzimtzum in Kabbalah, see Moshe Idel, “‘al Toldot Musag ha-‘tzimtzum’ be-Kabbalah u-ve-Mechqar,” in Mechqerei Yerushalayim be-Machshevet Yisra’el 10 (1991–1992 [5752]): 59–112.

228

C. Reader’s Guide

space in the created world is devoid of it and continues permanently to create the world de novo.54 The immanent presence of the Godhead in the world is not explained in detail in the Chesed le-Abraham. However, it is rather in a letter where R. Kalisker mentions “the inner light of God that gives presence to all existents such that there is no place from which it is absent” (59). In principle, R.  Kalisker, as he expressed himself in the sermons included in the Chesed le-Abraham (and specifically in the sections regarding tzimtzum and physical worship), understood God’s presence in the world as basically immanent.55 The concept of physical worship [‘avodah be-gashmiyut] is based on R. Kalisker’s sense of being near to God (Chesed le-Abraham, parshat Lekh Lekha, sermon no. 2). Tzimtzum, here taken not in the traditional sense, allows the Godhead to descend into the world in a covert manner: And so it is with the human being: all that one does and sees of the things of the world, and all that one undertakes to accomplish, including in the realm of speech and thought, must be undertaken in the context of a hyper-diligent effort to embrace the fear of God that has descended to the individual in question and which is present in the intellect that grants 54 Regarding the Hasidic understanding of the imminent presence of God in the world, see the Toldot Ya‘aqov Yosef [1972–1973], parshat Berei’shit, 32, and parshat Naso’, 474 (“for the whole world is God’s glory and no thing large or small is separate from God”). Note that there are editions in which the material relating to parshat Behaalotekha appears in two different sections, in which case this material is printed in the first, but there are other editions in which this material appears in the section relating to parshat Naso’. See Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov in the index, s.v. memalle’ kol ‘olamin, 371; Or ha-Emet, 66a and 99a; Tzava’at ha-RIVa”Sh in the index, s.v. male’ kol ha-aretz kevodo, 75d. Cf. also Schatz, Ha-Chasidut ke-Mistika, especially 110–121, 519, and in the places referenced in the index; Elior, “Ha-Zikah she-bein Kabbalah le-Chasidut,” 109–111; eadem, Torat ha-Elohut ba-Dor ha-Sheni, 25–60 and 100–102; eadem, Torat Achdut ha-Hafakhim, 90–91; Tishby and Dan, “Torat ha-Chasidut,” cols. 775–777. 55 The notion of worship in [the world of] physicality was formulated in the Hasidic world as a literary bequest from the BeSh”T: “for God, may God be blessed, wishes that [terrestrials] worship God with all their means [‘ofanim]” (Tzava’at ha-RIVa”Sh, §3, 1b. This idea is pegged to the scriptural verse “In all your ways, know God” (Proverbs 3:6) and also to the legend regarding Enoch, according to which he was a shoemaker who with every stitch would unify the name of the blessed Holy One and God’s Shekhinah (Midrash Talpiyot, s.v. “Enoch [Hebrew: Chanokh]”). See also Tishby and Dan, “Torat ha-Chasidut,” cols. 808–809.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

229

it vitality—for that sums up the entire human enterprise. (ibid., parshat Pinechas)

Similarly, “and the blessed Holy One created the world by causing one realm to descend from the previous one progressively until reaching the world of Embodiment—‘assiyah, the world that is the world we all now inhabit” (ibid., parshat Lekh Lekha, sermon no. 2).

VIII. In the thought of R. Abraham Kalisker as expressed the Chesed le-Abraham, the worship of God is both specific and demanding. Since individuals are called to ongoing mystic worship, it becomes their responsibility to yearn for maximal communion with God. This obligation pertains even when they are otherwise occupied with mundane matters (Chesed le-Abraham, parshat Lekh Lekha, sermon no. 2). In that regard, the quest for communion with God is just like the observance of all commandments: And so with respect to all the things that an individual does, including even things related to gross physicality like eating, drinking, or experiencing other sensory pleasure: if an individual cleaves unto the quality of [divine] wisdom that vivifies all to thwart in advance any experience of sensory pleasure in this world other than the pleasure that comes from [communion with] the divine alone (which is superior to any other qualities) and if the pleasure so derived is not pegged to any specific experience but rather to the success of all parts of the human soul [Hebrew: nafsho, rucho, ve-nishmato] coming together to suckle from the breasts of wisdom and in so doing to achieve [the state of] Nothingness at the root of the Life of all the Living…so that the individual in question cannot separate [from God] even for a single minute and so remains in an ongoing state of communion with the Creator, of blessed name— then that person becomes the [living embodiment] of the reference in Scripture at Song of Songs 5:6 to someone whose “soul departed at the behest of the [divine] word.” This is the true devequt that ties all attributes to the source of life of all worlds and it was for this reason that Father Abraham, peace be upon him, can [reasonably] be said to have fulfilled the [obligations of the] entire Torah [according to the text at bYoma 28b,

230

C. Reader’s Guide

where we read that] he cleaved unto wisdom, which is the root cause and origin point from which derives the vitality that inheres in all the various worlds, and became wise, and saw and knew the entire Torah including all six hundred and thirteen commandments. (Chesed le-Abraham, parshat Va’Etchanan).

Devequt is thus tied to self-sacrifice,56 which in this context does not mean the sacrifice of a martyr’s life—although the obligation to be ready to die a martyr’s death goes without saying. Rather, devequt is defined as mystical self-sacrifice, which involves being ready to risk one’s life and even to die in the context of the negation of one’s self and the inner personal aspect in the relationship between a human being and God. The readiness to self-sacrifice is the basis for all religious mystical activity; in particular, the prayer that a person’s “soul depart at the behest of the [divine] word” (ibid.). According to R.  Kalisker’s teachings, the individual is obliged to seek radical mystic achievement. This obligation includes transcending time and the physical world (ibid., parshat Chayyei Sarah), because “true worship must lead to the embrace of wisdom. And ‘wisdom comes from nothingness’ [Job 28:12], [a meditative state] that [exists on an even] more exalted plane than time itself, which is the [first of all created things]” (ibid., parshat Pinechas). “And the great mission of the individual created in the image of God is to tie together all [that exists from the lowest world to the uppermost” (ibid., parshat Mishpatim). Elsewhere the verse from II Samuel 23:3 to the effect that “a tzaddiq governs [with] the fear of God” is hermeneutically explicated to yield the general lesson that the tzaddiq has the power to void harmful decrees that may have been 56 Regarding self-sacrifice in Hasidism, see the Tzava’at ha-RIVa”Sh, §§42 and 43:1, 6b, and §57, 9b; Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §152; Or ha-Emet, 104a. Cf. Schatz, Ha-Chasidut ke-Mistika, 110 and 138; eadem, “Contemplative Prayer in Hasidism,” in Mechqarim be-Kabbalah u-ve-Toldot ha-Dattot Mugashim le-Gershom Scholem, ed. E. E. Urbach, R.  J. Zwi Werblowsky, and Ch. Wirszubski (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967–1968 [5728]), non-Hebrew section, 209–226; eadem, “Peirusho shel ha-BeSh”T le-Mizmor 107: Mitos ve-Ritos shel Yeridah li-She’ol,” Tarbiz 42 (1971– 1972 [5732]): 174–175 and 178–181; Elior, Torat ha-Elohut ba-Dor ha-Sheni, in the index, 399; eadem, Torat Achdut ha-Hafakhim, 171–175; N. Loewenthal, “SelfSacrifice of the Zaddik in the Teaching of R. Dov Ber,” in Jewish History: Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky, ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert and Steven J. Zipperstein (London: Peter Halban, 1988), 457–494.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

231

enacted against the Jewish people.57 Indeed, for R. Kalisker, the verse just cited references an act of mystic ascendency that raises all things to their celestial source, to the divine will. The role of the tzaddiq, the mystic, is to elevate all things from their lowest emanative level to their highest, undertaking to do precisely the opposite of what God did when creating the world, as God brought all things down from the higher to the lower levels. And this is the meaning of the verse from II Samuel that teaches that a tzaddiq governs [with] the fear of God, that is, that the blessed Holy One enacts a decree and the tzaddiq annuls it [according to the talmudic text at bMo‘ed Qatan 16b], which ability the tzaddiq acquires because he can simply send [such a decree] back, [just as the tzaddiq can return] every [existent] thing directly to its [celestial] source with fear, with love, and with wisdom until it arrives in the supernal world, the world of [true] freedom. (Chesed le-Abraham, parshat Mishpatim)

For the sake of mystic accomplishment, the individual has to embrace the kind of spiritual equanimity referenced above as hishtavvut58 “so that [in its absence,] all [life] feels like a prison [cell]” (ibid., parshat Pinechas). As a result, individuals feel obligated to redeem themselves—and their inmost vitality—and to purge themselves from all external attributes, to “destroy” their bodies and their gross physical attributes, to allow the good to overwhelm the wicked until arriving at the supernal source of those attributes, defined as the celestial world called the alma de-cheirut (“the world of freedom”). R. Kalisker does not deal with the debilitating influence of evil thoughts, but he writes about the enthusiastic struggle against such thoughts and the self-dedication that is requisite for successfully negotiating that struggle: . . . for true worshipers have to allow true enthusiasm [Hebrew: hitlahabut] to suffuse their worship of the Creator, may God and God’s name be blessed, to the degree at which they feel the kind of pleasure able to banish from the heart all earthly longing “so that all [life] feels like a prison [cell],” because, in truth, [they perceive] all the pleasures of their world to 57 See Joseph Weiss, “The Saddik Alternating the Divine Will,” in Studies in Eastern European Jewish Mysticism, 183–193. 58 See above, note 45.

232

C. Reader’s Guide

have descended from the world of pleasure, and all sources of pleasure in this world, both those that exist in reality and those that merely exist in potentiality, feel [to such people] as single drops [of water] in the ocean when compared with the true pleasure that derives from the worship of the blessed holy One, who is the life [of the universe] and the source of all [true] pleasure. (ibid., parshat Pinechas) And behold, if such individuals, in every action undertaken .  .  . manage to cleave to the quality of [divine] Wisdom . . . and solely to do so for the sake of God alone . . . and thus to empty themselves within the supernal source of the life of all the living [that is, God] . . . to the degree at which they are unable to separate from God for even a single moment but instead remain in a state of devequt with the blessed Holy One, of such people can it truly be said that their “souls depart at the behest of the [divine] word.” (ibid., parshat Va’Etchanan)

IX. The path along which R. Abraham Kalisker chose to take himself and his people towards a state of transcendent devequt, to true mystic achievement, took him by way of emotion, which is to say, the way of the heart that is activated when faith is embraced. This is not simple faith, rather, it is he kind of faith capable of activating the ability of the heart to “hear.” It leads to a level of meditative ability which, in turn, can guide the mystic “from the bottom of the [emanative] levels to their very top” (ibid., parshat Ki Tissa). R.  Kalisker cites the Zohar as he states that “understanding resides in the heart and thus is the heart the seat of understanding” (ibid.), which supports the remark that “the heart is the king [of the internal organs]” (ibid.) and not an individual’s native intelligence. Thus, the meditative focus of R. Abraham Kalisker was on the heart: And the well-known principle that the basis of all things is faith, just [as in the famous talmudic text recorded at bMakkot 24a in which the prophet] Habakkuk simmered all the commandments down to one single one, namely, “the righteous individual shall live by his faith” [Habakkuk 2:4] .  .  . for, in truth, faith is the foundation upon which to build all edifices and all other virtues. Without faith it is impossible to attain any

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

233

version of the virtues of [the] love [of God] or the fear [of to God]. If one has no faith, then whom will one love or fear? .  .  .  . as said in the Holy Zohar, “understanding resides in the heart and thus is the heart the seat of understanding” [Tiqqunei ha-Zohar, introduction, 17a], .  .  . [which means that] through faith one can come to possess a “listening” heart, the very kind of heart that will be sensitive enough to lead one to a state of meditative focus, which is what “understanding resides in the heart and thus is the heart the seat of understanding” means. And then, after that [stage is complete], the individual will come to wisdom, “and wisdom from nothingness shall come” [Job 28:12], thus showing how the believer can travel from the lowest levels to the highest ones. And this is what Zohar is alluding when it uses the phrase yarkin udnin [Zohar III:138b], in which yarkin [a regular verb meaning “to bend” that could also be vocalized as y’reikhin, the standard word for “thighs,” is used to teach us that] faith functions as [a pair of] legs—to say that faith functions as the foundation, just as the human body stands upon its legs so that its legs serve as its foundation, and this leads to the ability to hear [God’s voice] through a “hearing” [that is, discerning] heart. And that is at what the biblical phrase na‘aseh ve-nishma‘ [Exodus 24:7, literally “we shall do and we shall obey”] hints [if nishma‘ is read literally as “we shall hear”]: that it is only possible to obey a commandment through the medium of faith, only then can one come to “hear” [that is, to obey] it. (ibid., parshat Ki Tissa)59

R. Kalisker puts faith (na‘aseh) before meditative focus and before knowledge (nishma‘). The individual is thus called to seek faith before knowledge, for that prioritization corresponds to the will of God. “That is the specific reason that nowhere in Torah is the cultivation of faith presented as a commandment . . . for if it had been written in Torah that one is obligated to believe in God, that would yield the absurdity that one would be commanded to acquire faith, which . . . could not be fulfilled by someone who hadn’t already come to faith” (ibid.). 59 See also Barnai, Iggrot, 78, where R.  Kalisker resumes the basic principles of his approach to matters of faith. And cf. “‘And with two [wings] he would cover his feet’ [Isaiah 6:2]—for raglayim [the word translated in the verse as “feet”] are called “faith” because one stands on one’s legs and the legs support the entire body and so does faith support all worship, for if the worshiper does not believe in the blessed Holy One, then that person’s worship is no worship” (Or ha-Emet, 13a).

234

C. Reader’s Guide

At the time that the Red Sea was split in two, Israel was already on a high [spiritual] level, understanding that the foundation of all divine worship has to be faith, and it was for that reason that they put na‘aseh before nishma‘. Indeed, the passage that follows notes that “they believed in God” [Exodus 14:31]. It signals that they had [previously] come to faith (ibid., parshat Ki Tissa).

X. In his letters, R. Abraham Kalisker is revealed as an extreme, yet independent, spiritualist.60 He displays no sense of worry about the darker sides of his readers’ souls and does not write much about “strange thoughts” and other sinful activities, against which other Hasidic teachers warned at great length. (Perhaps this was because he took his own followers already to be bnei ‘aliyah, pious individuals, spiritual elite possessed of the most exalted virtues.) In his letters, R. Kalisker deals principally with the concept of hishtavvut and the various paths an individual can follow to attain a state of devequt with God. Others also dealt with this, of course, but R. Kalisker also devoted himself to writing about the periods of qatnut (literally, “constrictedness”), when the individual falls short of attaining devequt. R. Kalisker knows that “[circumstances often conspire to] toss an individual into qatnut,” that is to say, every individual is bound to come to a state of qatnut, and then to search for ways to overcome the tough times. As devequt with God is not possible permanently, R. Kalisker offers an alternative: it may be possible to achieve the same end by strategically seeking devequt with one’s colleagues first—and specifically with those who have achieved a state of devequt with God. Perhaps, the devequt experienced by the successful individuals who have come to know God will pass over to a secondary seeker of that same level of intimacy with the divine. Thus, by finding a way to exchange devequt with God for devequt with the individual who already has successfully attained devequt with God, the mystic, who otherwise would fail, could find a path towards sustained and untroubled devequt. Sometimes, this 60 R. Kalisker’s letters that contain Hasidic principles are in Barnai, Igrot, letters 17, 36 (that is, the part by R. Kalisker), 46 (=66:3; the part that is missing in Barnai can be found in Peri ha-Aretz [Kopyst, 1856–1857 (5617)], 31b), 56, 58, 59, 62, 63, and 77.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

235

will lead to true devequt and sometimes solely to an ancillary experience—but a variant of devequt nonetheless. R.  Kalisker describes in detail the upward path one must take to achieve devequt with the help of various musar books and Zohar. He insists that “when learning Talmud and Jewish law codes, one seeks at every single moment to bring oneself to a state of devequt with God, may God be blessed, and fear” (17).61 In his letters, R. Kalisker specifies the principles that underlie his theory of the kind of devequt attainable through the pursuit of hishtavvut and his “strategy” for remaining in a state of devequt even during the periods of qatnut. For the whole goal of Torah [observance] and [the pursuit of] wisdom in thought, speech, and deed is the attainment of the [stage of divine] Nothingness and nullity, and for oneself [similarly] to enter into a state of something like nothingness, for “wisdom comes from nothingness” [Job 28:20] and that state of Nothingness [Hebrew: ayin] is [wisdom’s celestial] root. And from this there follow the [twin] principle[s] of modesty and humility, in accord with that which our sages of blessed memory noted, that “the Torah is only sustained [in the world] through the efforts of those who make themselves “like a wilderness’” [paraphrasing Numbers Rabbah 19:15, cf. ibid. 1:6], that is, as ownerless property available [equally] to the poor and to the rich of intellect, [as] one who [understands oneself to be] no greater than the next person and, just to the contrary, selfeffaces in the face of [all] perceptible reality, thus allowing [oneself and the world around] to join together and be united as one, for ayin unites all things and their opposites, and from [this union] comes forth the [divine] pipeline that brings [to earth] blessing and peace. (Peri ha-Aretz, 31d)62 This matter was explained in the books of the earlier sages [who taught] that intelligence, love, and fear [are represented in equal parts in the state of] devequt that exists between us and God.  .  .  . But since there simply is no one who never enters into the state of cognitive qatnut that results in an interruption of the state of devequt with God, it was for that specific reason that God in the divine Torah commanded “and you shall love your fellow as yourself ” [Leviticus 19:18]. For it is love 61 Cf. “and when one learns, one must rest a bit each hour so as to unite oneself [ledabbeq ‘atzmo] with God, may God be blessed” (Tzava’at ha-RIVa”Sh, §29, 4b). 62 The section that is missing in Barnai, Igrot, letter 3.

236

C. Reader’s Guide

that leads to devequt, as is famously exemplified when two people come together [that is, in sexual union] and become as one person. Moreover, all who experience this surfeit of true devequt [in the context of sexual congress] know at that moment how refusal of self yields to sense of being of one flesh [with one’s partner]—and this experience is attained through devequt between two individuals and, [simultaneously] through a sense of deep connection to God, so that the two truly become one flesh. . . . And although the situations are not precisely parallel, what is surely so is that all who attain a state of devequt with God are drawn forward toward a state of holiness because of that connection to God. . . . This is what our blessed Sages meant when they said “what is good for an individual is also good for that person’s neighbor” [bSukkah 56b]. If it is so that one can hear the voice of God through the experience of dibbuq chaverim, then surely the commandments and Torah [itself] will be drawn to such people because of their state of devequt with individuals who have attained a state of communion with God.  .  .  . And from here it becomes obvious how far this kind of intimate connection with God and the love [of God] can lead because one individual becomes connected to the same [celestial] place as another, and it is an effective segulah [a guarantee of luck] that is established because of one’s colleagues who have already attained that state. (56)

The concept of dibbuq chaverim was developed precisely because of the intimacy that prevailed among the members of R. Kalisker’s congregation, for: it is well known that the [celestial] roots of the vitality that animates all Israel are [fashioned] of the letters of the Torah and that that vitality animates the ranks of all Israel so that the vitality of each exists in sparkling relationship to the vitality of the others. And this may well be the meaning of the talmudic remark to the effect that “all Jews function as each other’s sureties (bShavuot 39a)—that their [inner] lights and their vitality sources are all intertwined.63 And because of this they are commanded in an ongoing manner truly to “love each other as yourself.” (59)

63 Cf. Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §132, and see above, sections III and V.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

237

XI. R. Kalisker does not deny the importance of the tzaddiq, nor is the concept of attaining devequt with a tzaddiq in his thinking merely a specialized example of dibbuq chaverim. When R. Kalisker writes about the tzaddiq, both in his letters and in the sermons presented in the Chesed le-Abraham, he duly reports the teachings of the Maggid of Mezrich and R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk on the topic. His own point of view on the matter of the tzaddiq is more fully elaborated in his letters, and most vividly, in the letters written between 1790 [5551] and 1792 [5552]: The tzaddiq is the individual who brings down the divine shefa‘ [effluence] and thus serves in a way both as source of the shefa‘ and [also] as its [terrestrial] recipient, and he is also the one who returns existent things to their state of Nothingness, until reaching sufficient greatness to ascend the mountain of God called This World, by which I mean to say [something] that cannot [truly] be understood. (58)

Kalisker then goes on to repeat his teachers’ lessons by comparing the tzaddiq to the beloved child of the blessed Holy One. Following his teachers, he also describes the descent of the tzaddiq “for the sake of helping [all of that tzaddiq’s] disciples ascend to the Mount of God.”64 It would be beyond the purview of this essay to enter into an expanded discussion of the concept of the tzaddiq in Hasidic thought or of the relationship between the tzaddiq and his followers. Therefore, we shall solely observe that the great Hasidic teachers all state, albeit with differing points of emphasis, that the followers of a tzaddiq take upon 64 The image of the tzaddiq and the relations between the tzaddiq and his congregation has been considered at great length in scholarly research. See Scholem, Major Trends [1946], 337–338 and 342–347; idem, “Ha-Tzaddiq,” in Pirkei Yesod, 213–258; Joseph Weiss, “Rei’shit Tzemichatah shel ha-Derekh ha-Chasidit,” Zion 16 (1951– 1952 [5712]): 69–88, reprinted in Perakim be-Torat ha-Chasidut u-ve-Toldoteha, ed. Abraham Rubenstein (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1974–1975 [5735]), 122–181; idem, “The Saddik Alternating the Divine Will,” 183–193; Rivka SchatzUffenheimer, “Le-Mahuto shel ha-Tzaddiq be-Chasidut,” Molad 18 (1959–1961 [5720–5721]): 365–378; Tishby and Dan, “Torat ha-Chasidut,” cols. 779–784; Rapoport-Albert, “God and the Zaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship,” 296–325; Green, “The Zaddik as Axis Mundi,” 327–347; Liebes, “Ha-Mashiach shel ha-Zohar,” 113–116; Elior, “Between Yesh and Ayin,” 177 ff., and in the additional bibliography, 177n.31.

238

C. Reader’s Guide

themselves an obligation to enter into an intimate relationship with their leader, and the theory that appears in all their lessons is the more or less self-evident point that the chasid has to cleave until that hasid’s rebbe. That being the case, the decisive difference between the state of devequt with a tzaddiq and dibbuq chaveirim, which ideally should exist between members of the community, is that the former is essentially a one-way street, while the latter is essentially bi-directional. The decisive proof of this assertion is that that tzaddiq is not expected to exist in a state of devequt with the chasid at all. This, of course, cannot apply to the concept of dibbuq chaverim, which is built entirely on the notion of reciprocity. Practically speaking, of course, the goal of attaining a state of devequt with the tzaddiq does not demand any sort of contemplative effort from the chasid. Instead, chasidim are called upon to link themselves to the tzaddiq emotionally and economically: they entrust to the tzaddiq all of their worries, and in turn they make sure that the tzaddiq can dedicate himself entirely to his spiritual life. As R. Shlomo Vilner, a member of R. Kalisker’s community in Tiberias, put it in a letter from the year 1786– 1787 [5547]: You must feel enriched for having merited to become “emptied” [of ego] through your practice of bestowing grace after meals upon him [that is, on R. Kalisker], for these are the passageways of his physical influence and his [true] role as a channel to bring spiritual vitality to you. (38)

The tzaddiq is not an ideal, but merely a charismatic personality who has taken upon himself the worry about the spiritual (and possibly also physical) needs of those who have bound themselves to him. This is entirely different from dibbuq chaverim, where two individuals, one who has attained devequt with God and one who has solely attained devequt with the other individual, are both engaged in intense spiritual endeavor without which there is no possibility of attaining the “real” devequt with the Divine. In the context of dibbuq chaverim the roles of the participants change because one is sometimes in a state of intense devequt [Hebrew: devequt gedolah], whereas the other is merely in a secondary state of devequt. But at other times their respective levels of devequt are the reverse. R.  Kalisker distinguishes between two kinds (or, more precisely, between two levels) of devequt that can coexist within the same individual:

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

239

sometimes one can attain devequt with God, but at other times one can only achieve devequt with another person who has achieved devequt with God. But even someone in the latter situation, that is, one whose devequt with God comes through the devequt of another individual, can personally also attain devequt with God at some other time. In the meantime, his partner may have sunk into a state of qatnut—then he can achieve a state of devequt with God through the person whose devequt was priorly contingent upon his own: “and each individual has the power to raise up his fellow (36).” There were, of course, other Hasidic teachers who distinguished between these two levels in their teaching, but their lessons were diametrically opposite from R. Kalisker’s. They never spoke about a state of dibbuq between equals but rather about the difference between the devequt that a charismatic tzaddiq can attain and the kind that is attainable by ordinary people: the tzaddiq cleaves unto God, whereas the masses cleave unto the tzaddiq because they are unable to achieve a state of devequt with God on their own. Of these teachers, the foremost was R. Ya‘aqov Yosef of Pollonye (d. 1784), who actually coined specific terms to distinguish between the true mystic and the rest of the people.65 To 65 Individuals dealing with mystic matters are called anshei tzurah (“people of stature”) and talmidei chakhamim (“disciples of the wise”), as opposed to anshei chomer (“people of physicality”), hamonei ‘am (“the hoi polloi”), and other similar names. On the distinction between those who dealt in mystic matters and the rest of the people, cf. the remarks in the books of R. Ya‘aqov Yosef of Pollonye, for example, “and just as this is the ultimate goal for the individual, so is it [also] for the masses of the Israelite people called anshei ha-hamonei ha-‘amei ha-aretz (“the individuals who constitute the vulgar masses”) because their principal occupation is with corporeal matters related to physical stuff and, indeed, they are the physical stuff [that is, of the nation], as opposed to the tzaddiqim, who deal with the Torah and the worship of God and [who are thus to be considered] the form [that grants structure and meaning to that stuff]” (Toldot Ya‘aqov Yosef, introduction, 4a; “who grant structure to the people [who serve as the nation’s] physical stuff ” (Ben Porat Yosef [Koretz (1780–1781 [5541]]), 20c; the sermon relating to the verse “the deaf have heard and the blind have seen” (Isaiah 42:18) in the Tzafnat Pa’ane‘ach (Koretz, 1781–1782 [5542]), 19a; and many other places as well. Cf. also Gedaliah Nigal, Manhig ve-‘Edah: De‘ot u-Meshalim be-Rei’shit ha-Chasidut ‘al-pi R.  Ya‘aqov Yosef mi-Polnaah (Jerusalem, 1961–1962 [5722]), 58–65; Rapoport-Albert, “God and the Zaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship,” 304ff., where the author considers the question of who merited devequt in the first Hasidic generations. Cf. eadem, “Ha-Tenu‘ah ha-Chasidit acharei Shnat 1772,” Zion 55 (1989–1990 [5750]), 192–193. See also Piekarz, Bein Idiologiah li-Metzi’ut, 159–162; Etkes, “Hasidism as a Movement: The First Stage,” 17 and 22; and Samuel Dresner, The Zaddik (New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1960), pp. 113–190.

240

C. Reader’s Guide

make all this clearer, I will cite the words of R. Ya‘aqov Yosef of Pollonye himself regarding these diverse kinds of devequt: And so can it be understood that there are two kinds of devequt. One is [attainable] by the scholar who is able truly to cleave unto God. The other is the kind [attainable] by the masses who do not know how to achieve devequt with God, may God be blessed, [and who are nonetheless] commanded to seek devequt with the words “and unto God shall you cleave [Deuteronomy 10:20]—which means that such people are to seek devequt with a great scholar and that will be as though they had attained devequt with God, may God be blessed. And this is what the prophet Isaiah was alluding to when he [cited God as asking], “Why, when I came, was there no one [present] [Isaiah 50:2]? This means, as RaSh”I wrote, “Why have I come to become close to you, etc.—to enter into a state of devequt with you, but there is no one [present]—which means that [the masses are not constituted by] the kind of people who can achieve devequt with God, may God be blessed. (Tzafnat Pa‘anei’ach, 29d)

The call to devequt is a feature of all Hasidic teachers. R. Kalisker’s innovation is in his understanding of meditation as a way of expressing longing for ongoing devequt, which, even if it is unattainable on an ongoing basis with God, can nonetheless be attained through the “stratagem” of alternating between seeking devequt with God and with some other individual who has attained that state—specifically because it is not possible to live in an ongoing state of devequt with God since, as has already been noted, “permanent [that is, ongoing, uninterrupted] pleasure is not [real] pleasure [at all].”66

Within the world of Polish Hasidism, the earliest tzaddiqim—and particularly R.  Ya‘aqov Yitzchaq, the Seer of Lublin—denied autonomous mystic ability to the masses of chasidim and reserved that specific ability solely for tzaddiqim. Cf. Elior, “Between Yesh and Ayin,” 393-455. 66 “And the BeSh”T, may he rest in peace, made it known that permanent pleasure is not [real] pleasure” (Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §125). Cf. ibid., §§ 31 and 73. Cf. also Tzava’at ha-RIVa”Sh, §111, 20a. Regarding the concept of ongoing devequt in Hasidism and on the history of that concept in Jewish thought, see the beginning of Rapoport-Albert’s essay, “God and the Zaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship.”

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

241

XII. R. Kalisker’s teaching also differed from other Hasidic tzaddiqim in his opinion regarding the teaching of Hasidic principles in public. In this context, it is worth recalling, at least briefly, that the approach to the hidden and the revealed in Jewish mysticism has not been uniform over the generations. Indeed, Jewish mysticism vacillates between two opposing poles: an inclination to limit the dissemination of secret doctrines and the desire to propagate such teachings widely. There were, for example, some few chosen teachers who closed themselves off and claimed that the full entry into the secret world of Kabbalah was only permitted to them. But there other also periods when kabbalists attempted to exert their influence on very wide circles and sought to bring the entire Jewish people into the secret mystic world. Indeed, the struggle between these two opposing points of view continued on throughout the history of Kabbalah. It is true that there have been specific schools of kabbalists— and sometimes specific mystics—who did not participate in this struggle,67 but, generally speaking, the clash between these opposing poles was always ongoing. With the inception of Sabbateanism, Jewish mysticism became even more shackled to the concept of esotericism as it became forbidden to publish books or to purchase kabbalistic volumes that were not approved by at least three rabbis. An actual prohibition was enacted on the purchase or dissemination of other kabbalistic manuscripts. Some 67 Cf., for example, the legal decision of R.  Moses ben Mordekhai Bassola, printed at the beginning of the Tiqqunei ha-Zohar, which supports the dissemination of the Kabbalah and the printing of mystic books. At the same time, this rabbi also issued an edict of excommunication against the printers of kabbalistic books and those who possess them. Yisaiah Tishby, “Ha-Pulmus ‘al Sefer ha-Zohar be-Me’ah ha-Shesh-‘Esreh be-Italiah,” Perakim 1 (1966–1968 [5726–5727]): 133–134 and 158 (also printed in idem, Chiqrei Kabbalah u-Shluchoteha [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1981–1982 [5742]). R. Chayyim Vital also gave two opposing opinions, one in the introduction to the ‘Etz Chayyim (Warsaw, 1890–1891 [5651], original edition, Koretz, 1781–1782 [5542]), and the other in the Document of Affiliation (Hebrew: shetar hitqashrut), which was signed by Vital and the other students of R. Itzchaq Luria in 1575 [5335], about two years after Luria’s death. The shetar hitqashrut was published by Zev Rabinowicz under the title “Ktav Hitqashrut shel Talmidei ha-AR”I ve-R. Chayyim Vital” in his essay “Min ha-Genizah ha-Stolanit,” Zion 5 (1939–1940 [5700]): 125–132; idem, Ha-Chasidut ha-Lita’it (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1961), 171. See also Gershom Scholem, “Shetar Hitqashrut shel Talmidei ha-AR”I,” Zion 5 (1939–1940 [5700]): 133–160.

242

C. Reader’s Guide

manuscripts were even condemned to the flames and those who sought to collect them were put under bans. Even the study of Kabbalah was forbidden to those younger than forty years of age as well as to any who lacked a firm grounding in the study of Talmud and Jewish law.68 Nor is it possible to see a single unified approach among Hasidic teachers to the question of teaching and disseminating mystic secrets. Some tzaddiqim kept themselves back from teaching such things widely, whereas others regularly sermonized in public about them. But, of course, the Hasidic tendency to recognize the immanent presence of God in the world turned each individual into a part of the supernal Godhead and, practically speaking, this approach made mystic worship permissible. According to this line of thinking, holiness resides in every inididual and therefore, every and any individual may engage in mystic activity. However, this understanding of divine immanence granted to Hasidism a sense of the closeness of God and made the relationship between the individual and God immediate, without anyone to stand between them. In such atmosphere, it is difficult to imagine people going out of the way to follow the call of esoterica. Nonetheless, it is also necessary to take into account that early Hasidism grew up among small groups of pneumatics. If we find in the sermons preached in those conventicles statements about mystic worship 68 See the legal decision by the Council of Four Lands from the year 1686–1687 [5447] in Yisra’el Halpern, Pinkas Va’ad ‘Arba Aratzot: Liqqutei Takkanot, Ktavim, vi-Reshumot (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1944–1945 [5705]), §15, 7, §432, 205, and §753, 418; idem, Yehudim ve-Yahadut be-Mizrach Eropah: Mechqarim be-Toldotehem (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1968–1969 [5729]), 85–87; and Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: Hebetim Chadashim (Jerusalem: Schocken, 1993), 270–271. Idel is of the opinion that the prohibition of learning Kabbalah before the age of forty derived from “the penetration of Sabbatean texts that were written in the Lurianic style, and sometimes even specifically attributed to R. Luria, in accounts of the life of Shabbetai Tzvi.” Regarding such a prohibition, cf. also Meyer Balaban, Le-Toldot ha-Tenu‘ah ha-Frankit (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1933–1934 [5694]), vol. 1, 126; Abraham Yaari, “Le-Toldot Milchamtam shel Chakhamei Polin bi-Tenu‘at Frank,” in his Mechqerei Sefer (Jerusalem: n.p., 1957–1958 [5718]), 450–465; Natan Mikhael Gelber, Toldot Yehudei Brody: Arim ve-Imahot be-Yisra’el (Jerusalem, 1955–1956 [5716]), 107–108; and Gershom Scholem, “Ha-tenu‘ah ha-Shabbta’it be-Folin,” in his Mechqarim u-Mekorot le-Toldot ha-Shabta’ut ve-Gilguleha (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1973–1974 [5734]), 123–124. Regarding the historical source of this prohibition, see Moshe Idel, “Le-Toldot ha-Issur Lilmod Kabbalah lifnei Gil Arba‘im,” AJS Review 5 (1980): Hebrew section, 1–20.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

243

being open to all, it is probably necessary to understand that they were referring, first and foremost, to themselves. Support for this approach can be found in the specific language used by R. Ya‘aqov Yosef of Pollonye to distinguish between the mystics in his circle and the rest of the people.69 Only in later generations did Hasidism acquire its familiar characteristic of a group gathered around a tzaddiq who personally looked after its members’ spiritual and physical needs without distinguishing between the two. Even in later Hasidic generations, there were no extremist calls for breaking down the barriers to esoteric knowledge. The chasidim were in no hurry to publish books advertising their approach to Judaism. Indeed, the first Hasidic books were only published in the beginning of the 1780s, about twenty years after the death of Ba‘al Shem Tov (d. 1760).70 Hasidic teachers did not, generally speaking, write books setting forth their doctrines. Their sermons were jotted down by their students, and only published after the death of tzaddiqim by those students or by those students’ own students. It seems probable that this practice is rooted in an evident disinclination to reveal the secrets of the Torah: as long as the sermons of the tzaddiqim were transmitted orally, they could only reach an extremely limited audience and their esoterism was kept relatively private. On the other hand, the great Hasidic teachers (or at least a large percentage of 69 See above, note 65. 70 Gries published a specific book regarding the publication of Hasidic books, Sefer, Sofer, ve-Sippur be-Rei’shit ha-Chasidut, in which he expressed his opinion that the chasidim delayed the publication of their literature because Hasidism was not interested in the dissemination of its ideas in writing, but rather in the distribution of sermonic material orally as the glue “that unifies the many individuals into one body” (18, 64–67, et passim). Indeed, it is correct that even after the chasidim did begin to publish their homiletical literature they moved relatively slowly, carelessly, and at considerable distance of space and time from the authors of the original homilies. But this does not demonstrate that the chasidim were interested solely in the unifying glue of the oral sermon, even if there is no doubt that the ceremonial that consisted of delivering the sermon and listening attentively to it did draw listeners in tight around the tzaddiq. According to Scholem, Hasidic homiletical literature after 1815 grew, by all assessments, to more than one thousand volumes. See his Devarim Be-Go, 366–367. The pleas of the Maggid directed to his student, R. Shlomo of Lutsk, that the latter note down his words so that they might endure through the generations (Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, first introduction by R.  Shlomo of Lutsk, 2–3) also provide evidence that Hasidic teachers were eager for their words to be recorded and not solely transmitted orally.

244

C. Reader’s Guide

them) exemplified Ba‘al Shem Tov’s wish that “the wellsprings [of your teachings] shall be disseminated widely.”71 The publication of works by the tzaddiqim by those who heard their teachings and not by authors seeking to comment upon them helped bridge the chasm between the desire to preserve the esoteric and the need to proclaim the revealed.72 R. Kalisker confirms this intersection of ideas and explains that “it was necessary [that is, for him] to reveal a handbreadth but to keep hidden twenty cubits” (56) because “the secrets of the Torah may only be revealed, even to the wise and the insightful, as an outline [according to the mChagigah 2:1]” (49). And he specifically did not wish “to trade in great esoteric secrets and wonders . . . [and so] I have spoken of such only in very abbreviated form, for ‘the glory of God is in the hidden thing, etc. [Proverbs 25:2]” (58). But there are occasions when a certain ambivalence regarding the balance between the esoteric and the revealed part of his Torah is evident, for “many of our people seek to learn these things as thirsty people yearn for something to drink.” Even though it appears difficult for the Kalisker to set forth his reasons precisely, he was prepared to take into account the scriptural injunction not to “withhold good from 71 Cf. the letter from the BeSh”T to his son-in-law, R.  Gershon of Kutov. The letter was published at the end of R. Ya‘aqov Yosef of Pollonye’s Ben Porat Yosef (Korets, 5541 [1780/1781]). I will not delve here into the question of whether this sentence in the letter was truly by the BeSh”T. The letter was printed in some of the earliest Hasidic books and the chasidim accepted its authenticity without any equivocation. Regarding the place of this letter in the dissemination (or the lack of dissemination) of the philosophy of Hasidism, see Elior, Ha-BeSh”T ve-Rei’shit ha-Tenu‘ah ha-Chasidit, 12, and Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 6 and 13–15. Regarding the positive way in which R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady related to the revelation of mystical secrets, see the next section and note 73 below. 72 We find an interesting consideration of the debate between exotericism and esoterism in the history of Jewish mysticism in the first introduction of R.  Shlomo of Lutsk to the Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, the principle homiletical work of the Maggid of Mezrich that the former prepared for publication. In his introduction, R.  Shlomo tells about the hesitation he felt in setting the sermons of the Maggid in written form, and all the more so about publishing them, even despite the fact that the Maggid himself urged him to do so. See the Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, introduction, 1–2, and cf. Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer’s preface, 21. In this context, Rabi Shlomo of Lutsk was a key personality in the dissemination of Hasidism and in the decision to distribute its earliest works. Even before R. Shlomo actually published Hasidic books, he was involved in editing books, including kabbalistic and mystic works. Regarding R. Shlomo of Lutsk’s involvement in the publication of Kabbalah and Hasidism, see Gries, Sefer, Sofer, ve-Sippur be-Rei’shit ha-Chasidut, 53–54.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

245

them to whom it is due” (Proverbs 3:27). But, when all was said and done, the impetus to hide the esoteric seems to have won the day, for “it is surely so that the obligation to write down any Torah teaching comes from God and includes even a single letter of any lesson” (63) and, if the matter had been solely in his hands, he would have “collected all the holy books that were disseminated among amateurs and sequestered them in the hands of the pure of soul. Then, from those books, novices could learn “small section by small section as their intellectual abilities increased after much preparation” (65). Despite his own occasional ambivalence, R. Kalisker insisted on an exclusivist approach to esoteric teachings. Other hasidic teachers of the time allowed their teachings to be available to a wider audience. Even though they often delivered their lessons exclusively in oral form, their teachings were transcribed and later transmitted by their students.73

XIII. R.  Kalisker’s demands regarding esotericism have their origin in his understanding of the doctrine of tzimtzum (“contraction”). Just as God “contracted” the shefa‘ (the divine effluence that functions in kabbalistic theory as the reified symbol of divine governance of the world) “as it descended from world to world so that its [eventual earthly] recipient would be able to receive it . . . even despite the recipient’s [relatively] minimal ability [actually to do so]” (Chesed le-Abraham, parshat Shoftim), so must individuals live a life of tzimtzum. Moreover, according to the 73 Regarding the relationship of the Habad movement to the debate concerning the concealment or revelation of Torah secrets, see Elior, Torat Achdut ha-Hafakhim, 128–130, 145–152, 153–159, and 176–186. Loewenthal’s book, Communicating the Infinite, particularly its first chapter, is dedicated to exploring the problems connected with the dissemination of ChaBa”D teachings. Regarding the goal of revelation and concealment in the teaching of R.  Nachman of Bratzlav, see Joseph Weiss, “Gillui ve-Khissui be-Torat Bratzlav ve-Sifrutah,” in Mechqarim be-Chasidut Bratzlav, 181–248; Mendel Piekarz, Chasidut Bratzlav (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1971–1972 [5732]), 10–19. In a later generation, R. Tzevi Hirsh of Zidichov (and, following him, the various tzaddiqim of the Zidichov-Komarno dynasty) called openly for the study of Kabbalah. Cf. R.  Tzevi Hirsh’s book, Sur me-Ra‘ va-‘Aseh Tov (Lviv, 1631–1632 [5592], putative original edition, Lviv or Zhovkva, 1629–1630 [5590], according to the copy in the Scholem library).

246

C. Reader’s Guide

biblical narrative, even the Torah was given to Israel following a pattern of tzimtzum, garbed in mystery, so that it does not reveal its secrets to all to the same degree. Therefore, every individual must struggle to understand the inmost meaning of the Torah, and each person will achieve that goal to a different extent: We only heard the [first two of the Ten Commandments:] “I [am the Lord your God]” and “You shall have [no other gods besides Me]” spoken [directly to us] by God [bMakkot 24a, et al.], which means that the entire Torah was [somehow] included in [just] those two commandments . . . [including] the entire Oral Torah and the ever innovative comments that seasoned scholars would later make .  .  . and [also] all the hidden interpretations and secrets of the Torah—all this was included. (Chesed le-Abraham, parshat Lekh Lekha, sermon no. 2)

This is the secret meaning of tzimtzum when applied to the words of the Torah: the scholarly elite [bnei ‘aliyah] will reveal all the “hidden interpretations and secrets of the Torah,” each according to his level of understanding and the supernal source of his soul. If it were desirable that the Torah be a fully accessible document, then the mystic secrets of the Torah, its inmost meaning, would be available to all. As things are, however, the mystic must exhaust himself utterly, both physically and psychically, to uncover that inmost meaning, hidden beneathvarious garbs, which serve as the Torah’s coverings: And it was in this way that the blessed Holy One revealed the Torah garbed in various coverings . . . so that each would achieve a level of meaning in accordance with that individual’s own ability. (Ibid., parshat Lekh Lekha, sermon no. 1)74 74 In this regard, R. Kalisker was able to rely on the Maggid of Mezrich. Cf. the Maggid’s expression: “Although in a state of unknowing, all is included in it (in the Torah)” (Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, §134). Cf. also “and just as I heard from the mouth of the pious rabbi, our teacher, R. Gershon Lutsker, the divine student of R. Dov Ber, may he rest in peace, who said in the name of his teacher regarding a statement by our sages of blessed memory [as our sages of blessed memory said, according to the bChagigiah 12a] to the effect that the blessed Holy One saw light that was unworthy for use and storied it away for the tzaddiqim of a future day . . . and after that the blessed Holy One hid it in the Torah, hid it and made it invisible so that the light would not be revealed to idiots or people lacking wholeness—who would therefore be unable to understand such recondite matters. But the tzaddiqim who tremble

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

247

As an indication of the level of effort required to uncover the inmost secrets of the divine presence, R. Kalisker cites the example of the patriarch Abraham, the archetype of an individual of faith: for with respect to Abraham does the Torah note that ‘he believed in God’ [Genesis 15:7], and it was through this [level of] faith that he came to a level above all [normal human] qualities without actually being a different kind of human being.” (Ibid., parshat Ki Tissa)75

Thus, thanks to his high level of devequt with the Divine, Abraham did not only observe all the commandments of the Torah but also had the fortitude to reveal all of its mystic secrets. As the Kalisker notes, before the coming of the Messiah, that is, each individual will be able to reveal mystic secrets only according to his personal ability. Only the Messiah, when he comes, will be in a position to reveal all secrets publicly so that they will become known to all.76 our Father Abraham, peace be upon him, . . . lived before the Torah was revealed, yet . . . sought to such a fervent degree—at every single moment with all of his inner qualities and through the way he behaved in the world, before [God’s] word, and expositors of [God’s] holy name [ve-dorshei ha-shem], and those who seek [those secrets] as [though they constituted the greatest] treasure . . . this light is destined in the future to shine upon them (Meshulam Feibish of Zbarż, Yosher Divrei Emet [Mukachevo, 1904–1905 (5665), 11b–c, later edition, Jerusalem, 1973–1974 (5734), §3, 3a]). In his book Seder ha-Dorot ha-Chadash (Lviv, 1870), ch. 2, §11, Menachem Mendel Bodek relies on the material cited above and counts “our rabbi and teacher” Gershom of Lutsk among the students of the Maggid of Mezrich. So did Aharon Walden in his Shem ha-Gedolim ha-Chadash (Warsaw, 1879–1880 [5640], 17b, letter ‘ayin, §13.) 75 On the question of the divine worship of our father Abraham in Hasidic thought, see Arthur Green, Devotion and Commandment: The Faith of Abraham in the Hasidic Imagination (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1989), 34–50, and Rachel Elior, “Temurot ba-Machshavah ha-Datit be-Chasidut Polin,” Tarbiz 62 (1992–1993 [5753]), 396–397. 76 Those who speak positively about the dissemination of the Kabbalah rely in general on either, or both, of two arguments. The first one states that it is impossible to engage in divine worship properly without any background knowledge of Kabbalah. The other reason has to do with the theory that the study of Kabbalah and its dissemination serve to hasten the arrival of the Messiah and in the messianic era all such secrets will become known. Those preachers who called for the dissemination of Kabbalah and who sermonized regarding its esoterica were divided regarding the question of whether the Messiah will reveal these secrets when he appears or whether the point should be to hasten his arrival by revealing them in advance.

248

C. Reader’s Guide

evening and morning and afternoon, until he merited to find, in his brain and in his heart, as his kidneys and his mental processes offered him advice as to how to find—[a way] to know God, to understand and attain the entire Torah, including all of its secrets and even the most hidden points of the scribes and sages, even something [as apparently simple as how to prepare an] ‘eruv tavshilin, as our sages noted in the Talmud [at bYoma 28b]. [This] is further referenced in the holy Zohar, [that Abraham travelled] back and forth in the Negev and achieved balance [Aramaic: vetakal be-tikleta; based on Zohar I:78a], and understood the thoughts and vitality of every culture, and the virtues and holiness and never-ending vitality of the Holy Land. What effort and energy [Abraham] invested in [the effort] to descend to the depths of each detail until the blessed Holy One promised [to bring him to] “the land that I shall show you” [Genesis 12:1], as is noted in that same passage in the holy Zohar! And if this was so with respect to our Father Abraham, then we are even more so obliged to exert ourselves and to expend energy with all our soul and all our might to seek out a mitzvah, for “the mitzvah is a lamp and the Torah, light” [Proverbs 6:23], so that the blessed Holy One grant that we understand the depth of each detail [in the Torah] and its inmost meaning, as our sages said in several places: “If someone says, ‘I exerted myself and found [the solution to my problem],’ you can believe him” [based on the passage found at bMegillah 6b]. And so shall we all merit to attain, each according to his worth and his virtue, [a personal level of understanding] until the coming of our righteous Messiah, may that day come quickly and in our day, amen selah. (Chesed le-Abraham, parshat Lekh Lekha, sermon no. 1)

The task of achieving mystic revelation or mystic knowledge rests on the shoulders of the individual, and it is specified that one can attain such knowledge only “according to his worth and his virtue.” For that reason, exposing what one has attained “according to his worth” could only do harm to a person of lesser worth. Each must therefore strive to exploit his own intellectual ability, which is believed to be fixed even before birth, but in no case can one achieve understanding beyond that which his own psychic roots can handle. “And when the fetus is still in its mother’s uterus, they teach him the entire Torah” [based on bNiddah 30b]—this refers to all that an individual can learn based on the [celestial] root of his soul . . . and that constitutes the

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

249

work assigned for him [to accomplish] in this world. (Chesed le-Abraham, parshat Lekh Lekha, sermon no 2)

R. Kalisker followed in the footsteps of the mystics who guarded esoteric knowledge. He stuck with the traditional reason for hiding mystic teachings: the fear that, because of the student’s limited mental capabilities, the Kabbalah will be understood on a simplistic level, which will lead to a crude undiscerning understanding of the Godhead and may cause the student to renounce faith. However, while R. Kalisker, like the others teachers of the esoteric, opposed the public teaching of Torah’s secrets, he condoned revealing such secret doctrines to those worthy of them. For support in this matter, he turned to the few mystics who even in their profane speech never intended to speak “other than of God alone” (ibid.).

XVI. Two central issues in the thought of R. Abraham Kalisker that are intertwined with each other—his description of the way to acquire mystic knowledge, which begins with the effort to understand one’s own heart, and his tendency to the esoteric—are the touchstone of the controversy between R. Abraham and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, called RaSha”Z. This controversy first erupted with the publication of the Sefer shel Beinonim (in Tanya, 1596–1597 [5557]).77 Without becoming involved in the details of the controversy, I shall attempt to shed some light on the background behind R. Kalisker’s ideas on this matter.78 The essential lesson of the Sefer shel Beinonim is that the mystic worship of God is available to everyone. The mystical path of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady is founded on the need for knowledge regarding the 77 For a bibliographic clarification regarding the printing of the various parts of the Sefer ha-Tanya, see the current editions, 182a and 214a–218a, and Yehoshua Mondshein, Liqqutei Amarim Hu Sefer ha-Tanya: Mahadurotav, Tirgumav, u-be‘urav (Kfar ChaBa”D: Kehot Publishing House, 1981–1982 [5742]). 78 Regarding the causes of the dispute between R. Kalisker and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, see Heilman, Beit Rabi [1943], vol. 1, ch. 21, 41a–45b; Teitelbaum, Ha-Rav mi-Liady, vol. 2, ch. 15, 136–148; Brawer, “On the Quarrel,” 142–150 and 226–238; Haran, The Internal Ideological Dispute, part 4. A summary of the various points of view—both of Hasidic authors and researchers—regarding the origin of the conflict is given in Haran, The Internal Ideological Dispute, part 3, ch. 13.

250

C. Reader’s Guide

essence of the Godhead and the way in which God exists in the world. Assuming that knowledge is the essential demand of the Hasidic thought, each person will wish to see the Torah and its knowledge widely disseminated, while one who is prepared to skip over the need for knowledge will also have no need to work for its dissemination. According to R. Shne’ur Zalman, the way to the peak mystic experience, to devequt and the total dissolution of the self, passes through the thought processes of the individual, through the quest for knowledge. Only after the individual utilizes his inborn intelligence to attain all that is possible to grasp, he comes to a place of regnant faith, which is beyond reason and knowledge (Tanya, Sefer shel Beinonim, chs. 18 and 19, et passim). R. Shne’ur Zalman further notes that understanding the teachings about the Godhead will, for each individual, shed light on the true nature of being that goes far beyond what one can see with human eyes and will awaken the emotions that lead to devequt (ibid, chapters 3, 41, 42, et passim). For him, the goal of all divine worship in the Hasidic community is to attain the level of the incisive intellect that leads to the development of religious sentiment and to devequt.79 The mystical apogee that R. Kalisker sought to attain is no less august than the one sought by R. Shne’ur Zalman. Nor is the task that R. Kalisker placed on the shoulders of the individual any lighter than the one set by R. Shne’ur Zalman. However, these two tzaddiqim offer entirely different means to attain the mystic goal. At first, R. Kalisker skips over the intellectual stage, perhaps because if understanding of the immanence of divine presence happens too early, it may lead to an incorrect estimation of human potential. Progress forward through human understanding unnerved R. Kalisker, according to whom “the realm of the intellect is the source of divine harsh judgment.” Accordingly, his first requirement is “faith that is superior to the intellect,” although R. Kalisker too admits that there is no danger in utilizing the intellect after faith has been achieved. The intellect only comes into play after the individual has felt the fear of God, “since the point at which the fear [of God] is attained 79 Cf. also the letter of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady to R. Abraham Kalisker, in which he wrote, “It is impossible to be God-fearing without [first mastering] introspection, as published in Hillman, Igrot, no. 103. Cf. also Scholem, Devarim be-Go, 325–350; Elior, Torat ha-Elohut ba-Dor ha-Sheni shel Chasidut Chabad, 315–324; eadem, Torat Achdut ha-Hafakhim, 145–152.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

251

is the end of doing and the beginning of thinking” [based on the verse from the Sabbath hymn Lekha Dodi]. Intellect is subservient to faith: “if one sees that the intellect is being utilized to clarify [one’s beliefs] and to strengthen and to refine [them], this is [within the licit] bounds [for] the intellect [to function], and[, as Scripture says] with respect to [further] counsel and knowledge: the generous giver will be blessed [Proverbs 22:9]” (65). The end of the journey—the faith that transcends reason and knowledge, leading to devequt—is identical in the teaching of both tzaddiqim. Both R. Kalisker and R. Shne’ur Zalman understood the essence of the Godhead similarly as well. The controversy between them was rather focused on the question of how an understanding of the essence of the Godhead could be achieved, and how faith outside reason and knowledge could be attained—whether emotionally or intellectually. They also disagreed about whether an attempt to attain intellectual understanding had to precede the acquisition of faith or whether the reverse was the case and faith and the purification of the soul had to precede intellectual understanding.80 The two tzaddiqim followed the teachings of their masters, the Ba‘al Shem Tov, the Maggid of Mezrich, and R. Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, about divine worship. However, R. Kalisker and R. Shne’ur Zalman interpreted these teachings in different ways, which made them take differing approaches to the public dissemination of Hasidic teachings and offer different explanations of the Hasidic task in kabbalistic principles .

XV. In the period between the demise of Sabbateanism and the development of institutionalized Hasidic groups, there were individual esoteric mystics who, in small and closed groups, kept aglow the embers of kabbalistic study and Torah-based esoteric practices.81 Although R. Abraham 80 See Elior, “The Minsk Dispute,” 189–199; eadem, Torat Achdut ha-Hafakhim, 153– 159; Gries, “From Myth to Ethos,” 126–132; Rapoport-Albert, “God and the Zaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship,” 202. 81 On these conventicles [Hebrew: chavurot] in the earliest days of Hasidism, see Gershom Scholem, “Shtei ha-‘Eduyot ha-Rishonot ‘al Chavurot ha-Chasidim

252

C. Reader’s Guide

Kalisker belonged to third generation of Hasidism, together with other students of the Maggid of Mezrich, it feels as though he would be more at home in the pre-Hasidic world with respect to his feelings about the teaching of esoterica and his disinclination to “raise up many chasidim.” He could easily belong to the period when small mystic communities opposed mass dissemination of the study of Kabbalah and Torah-based esoterica, even though some ambiguity on that matter is evident in their writings.82 With his mystic philosophy, R. Kalisker followed in the footsteps of the Maggid of Mezrich and R.  Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk; however, his description of the path to the summit of mystic achievement shows that he may have belonged to a different school of thought. It feels likely, in fact, that this is one of the reasons for which such a small amount of documents constitute his literary legacy. On the other hand, of course, there is no doubt that physical factors also played a role in that fact. After all, Tiberias was geographically separated from the rest of the Jewish world, and there lived only a very limited number of chasidim. R.  Kalisker, the student of the Maggid of Mezrich, does not go any further in his teaching than the Maggid did in his sermonizing. As noted, he even repeats his teacher’s turns of phrase and makes use of his parables. Nonetheless, one gets the sense that R. Kalisker’s personality differed from the type of mystic that grew up in the “courtyard” of ve-ha-BeSh”T,” Tarbiz 20 (1948–1949 [5609]): 228–240; Weiss, “Rei’shit Tzemichatah shel ha-Derekh ha-Chasidit,” 46–49; idem, “A Circle of Pneumatics in Pre-Hasidism,” in his Studies in Eastern European Jewish Mysticism, 27–42; Dinur, Be-Mifneh ha-Dorot, 159–170; Elior, Ha-BeSh”T ve-Rei’shit ha-Tenu‘ah ha-Chasidit, 19–20; eadem, Torat Achdut ha-Hafakhim, 24–27. See also the sources cited in the next note. 82 In Hasidism, there are traditions that even attribute to the BeSh”T the prohibition of studying Kabbalah and teaching it in public. See Shivchei ha-BeSh”T, ed. Yehoshua Mondshein (Jerusalem, 1981–1982 [5742]), addenda, 250 (section Limmud Kabbalah). Cf. also Gershom Scholem, “Demuto ha-Historit shel R.  Yisra’el Ba‘alShem-Tov,” in Devarim be-Go, 320. Scholem also mentions the rebuke the BeSh”T leveled against the Maggid of Mezrich for revealing Torah secrets in an unworthy manner. See also the Sefer Ba‘al Shem Tov, ed. Shim‘on Menachem Mendel Vadnik, vol. 2 (Landsberg, 1947–1948 [5708], original edition, Lviv, 1934–1935 [5695]), §69, 99a, where the Maggid has turned into just “a certain individual.” Regarding the place of Kabbalah study in the earliest days of Hasidism, see Mendel Piekarz, Bimei Tzemichat ha-Chasidut (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1977–1978 [5738]), 320–338. For the larger context of this phenomenon, see Moshe Idel, “Perceptions of Kabbalah in the Second Half of the 18th Century,” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 1, no. 1 (1991): 55–114.

The Doctrine of R. Abraham Kalisker

253

the Maggid, and this is so even given the wide variegation that typified the ranks of the Maggid’s followers.83 One gets the sense that in his contemplative extremism and his intense yearning for esoterica, R. Kalisker really belonged to the pietist groups that existed before the time of Ba‘al Shem Tov. There is no great contradiction between Ba‘al Shem Tov’s statement that “the wellsprings [of your teachings] shall be disseminated widely”84 and R. Kalisker’s remark that “it is possible that a proliferation of Hasidism could, Heaven forfend, have been undertaken by the sitra achra [that is, the Other Side, the demonic realm] so as to lose the grain amidst the straw, God forbid” (64).85 In the Hasidic genealogy, R. Kalisker belonged to the chasidim of the Ba‘al Shem Tov and his teacher, the Maggid of Mezrich; however, the evidence we have of his thought seems to show that he follows the ways of the communities that flourished in the pre-Hasidic era. Even if we stipulate that his call for dibbuq chaverim was essentially a stratagem intended to assist in the attainment of ongoing mystic elevation, there was, nonetheless, in the version of dibbuq for which he called an echo of the earliest Hasidic groups, who preached egalitarianism among the members of their small tightly knit circles.86 Indeed, a distinct echo of such earlier times in his instructions to withdraw from society 83 Regarding the variegation in the thinking of the Hasidic teachers in the generation of the BeSh”T and the generation of the Maggid of Mezrich, see Abraham J. Heschel, The Circle of the Baal Shem Tov: Studies in Hasidism, ed. Samuel H. Dresner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), especially 24–27. Cf. also Rapoport-Albert’s material cited above in note 65. 84 See above, note 71. 85 See sections V and XII. Even if the cited remark attributed to the BeSh”T was not accepted by all circles within Hasidism, there was nonetheless opposition in such circles neither to the inclusion of [new] chasidim in the movement nor to an increase in the number of chasidim. Cf. Elior, Torat Achdut ha-Hafakhim, 25. According to Elior, “the distinction between the pre-Hasidic kabbalistic conventicles and the [later] Hasidic ones had to do with the degree of great openness to the wider community that prevailed in the circle of the BeSh”T as opposed to the hermetic self-seclusion of the kabbalistic conventicles.” See also eadem, Torat ha-Elohut ba-Dor ha-Sheni shel Chasidut Chabad, 19. 86 Regarding the Hasidic tzaddiqim who belonged to the old school of ascetics associated with the pre-Hasidic period, see Weiss, “Rei’shit Tzemichatah shel ha-Derekh ha-Chasidit,” 46–49; Rapoport-Albert, “God and the Zaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship,” 184n.2, and 190–191n.19. The fact that the sermons of R. Abraham ha-Mal’akh, considered an ascetic kabbalist in the style of earlier generations, were published together with R. Kalisker’s sermons in the book

254

C. Reader’s Guide

and to embrace asceticism, fasting, weeping, and the practice of making confessions87—even if in the larger picture of Hasidic life none of these is unique to R. Kalisker.88 This peculiar feature of his thought is, possibly, a proof of the Kalisker’s early relationship with the students of the Vilna Ga’on (d. 1797)89 before he was “seized” by Hasidism. And it is also possible that the accusations other chasidim made against R. Kalisker, especially the ecstatic comportment of his thought, were a direct reaction to this peculiarity.90 —translated by Martin S. Cohen (Shelter Rock Jewish Center, New York)

Chesed le-Avraham offers possible testimony to the fac that these two tzaddiqim were seen as fellow travelers. See above, note 81. 87 See Mordekhai Vilensky, Ha-Yishuv he-Chasidi be-Tiveria, 109–110. 88 Regarding an ascetic ethos and extreme spiritual demands, see Piekarz, Bimei Tzemichat ha-Chasidut, 37–39, 49, 78, 85, 153, 160, 168, et al. Regarding the place of asceticism in Hasidism, see Schatz-Uffenheimer, Ha-Chasidut ke-Mistikah, 42–43, particularly 43n.5; Rachel Elior, “Temurot ba-Machshavah ha-Datit be-Chasidut Polin,” 402–427; eadem, “Natan Adler ve-ha-‘Edah ha-Chasidit be-Frankfurt: Ha-Zikah bein Chavurot Chasidiot be-Mizrach Eiropa u-ve-Merkazah be-Me’ah ha-18,” Zion 59 (1993–1994 [5754]): 37–42 (especially 40n.29), 42–44, and 62–64. 89 Gries, “From Myth to Ethos,” n.2. 90 See the letter of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady to R. Kalisker, Hillman, Igrot, letter 103.

Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias: R. Abraham of Kalisk's Encounter with Reb Nachman of Bratzlav Aubrey L. Glazer (Panui, Montréal/San Francisco)

And Reb Nachman once said: “Although I’ve seen many tzaddiqim, but in terms of integration [shlemut] I have only witnessed this with the holy tzaddiq, R. Abraham of Kalisk.1

Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Moshe Idel for critical feedback on the dialectic between the oral and visual qualities of contemplation in Hasidism as it applies to this encounter between the two Hasidic mystics in question as well as sharing aspects of his forthcoming study from Vocal Rites and Broken Theologies: Cleaving to Vocables in R. Israel Ba'al Shem Tov's Mysticism, (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2020). I am also grateful to Ariel Evan Mayse for sharing early on his study on the Maggidʼs philosophy of language, especially chapter 6, “Study and the Sacred Text,” in his recent study, Speaking Infinities. I have benefited from ongoing conversations on the Kalisker with Nehemia Polen, Gershon Hundert, Elliot Wolfson, and Miles Krassen. 1 R.  Eliezer Schick, Sefer Peʻulat ha-Tzaddiq (Jerusalem: Ḥaside Bratzlav, 1993), no. 249, 146–147. See also earlier parallel accounts in R.  Natan of Nemirov, Sefer

256

C. Reader’s Guide

The “grain” is the body in the singing voice. . . . I cannot help making a new scheme of evaluation for myself, individual no doubt, since I am determined to listen to my relation to the body of someone who is singing or playing and since that relation is an erotic one, but not at all “subjective.”2

Sounds are revelatory—whether in casual conversation, prayer, study, or ecstatic singing—they transmit a certain spiritual vitality embedded within the grain of the voice. There is a critical distinction, according to semioticians like Roland Barthes (1915–1980), between the “genosong” and the “pheno-song.” The “pheno-song” covers all phenomenal features from the “structure of the sung language[,] . . . everything, which in the performance is in the service of communication and representation, of expression: what is usually spoken of, what forms the tissue of cultural values.”3 The “geno-song” with its erotic resonances, by contrast, is more concerned with the experiential layers, including the volume of the speaking and singing voice, the space in which “the significations germinate from within the language in its very materiality. . . .”4 What is unique about the embodied nature of the geno-song is how amidst its signifying function it also serves to communicate and represent feelings. This ability to express a melody thus embodies a “voluptuous pleasure of its signifier sounds of its letters.”5 This feeling conveyed through language as well as resonating beyond it is critical to better appreciating the unique textures of Hasidic mysticisms and their genotextual performances. In the worlds of experience that typified Hasidic mysticism, there is a preponderant concern with spiritual vitality transmitted actively through sounds rather than solely focusing upon the ocular quality of the letters called ‘otiyot, which is more common to Kabbalah.6 There is much to reconsider in general with regard to the analysis of ecstatic encounters

2 3 4 5 6

Ha-Aretz ha-Qodesh (Jerusalem: Mechon Torat ha-Netzakh Bratzlav, 1998), ch. 7, 100–103, 106–110. Roland Barthes, The Grain of the Voice: Interviews 1962–1980 (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2009), 267–276. Ibid., 269. Ibid., 271. Ibid., 270. Moshe Idel, “Conceptualization of Music in Jewish Mysticism,” in Enchanting Powers: Music in the World’s Religions, ed. L. Sullivan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997): 159–188.

Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias

257

within Hasidic mysticism , and in particular with regard to the grain of the voice in one remarkable encounter in Tiberian Hasidism to be addressed shortly. If the Hasidic ethos is indeed one of spiritual influence of the “co-arising” through sonorous community,7 then I will suggest that there is a deeper engagement of "interbeing” that is embodied in the process of making music that is kinesthetically and corporeally witnessed, felt, and transmitted. At the very heart of the genotextual potential of performance, the mystic, akin to the actor-musician, is engaged in reenacting the formation of the symbolic order as it emerges out of the human expression of channeling divine sonority between two aspirants from one world of consciousness to the next and beyond.8 Within our present analysis, the Hasidic embodiment of gestures, pulsion, and grain of the voice emerges through music that has a transitive power to transfer spiritual energy from rebbe to chasid, from chasid to chasid, and from tzaddiq to tzaddiq. This transmission through music takes place in any series of sonic combinations as engaged through: (1) theurgy (human impact upon divine infrastructure); (2) magic (human attempts to manipulate nature); (3) and mysticism (transformations of inner states of consciousness).9 To ring the bells of a primordial song of Torah through ecstatic sympathetic resonance is to allow the dualism that separates inside and 7 Ibid. On Tich Nhất Hạnh’s notion of “Interbeing” see Gary Gach, What Book!?: Buddha Poems from Beat to Hiphop (N.p.: Parallax, 1998), 208: Interbeing: If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either. So we can say that the cloud and the paper inter-are. “Interbeing” is a word that is not in the dictionary yet, but if we combine the prefix “inter-” with the verb “to be,” we have a new verb, inter-be. The cloud and the sheet of paper inter-are. On “co-arising” see Tich Nhất Hạnh, The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy & Liberation: The Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and Other Basic Buddhist Teachings (New York: Harmony Books, 2015), 246. 8 I build upon the revisionary reading of Barthes as articulated by Michael Szekely, “Gesture, Pulsion, Grain: Barthes’ Musical Semiology,” Contemporary Aesthetics 4, no. 1 (2006): 5; Dominic Symonds, “The Corporeality of Musical Expression: The Grain of the Voice and the Actor-Musician,” Studies in Musical Theatre 1, no. 2 (2007): 167–181. 9 Idel, “Conceptualization of Music in Jewish Mysticism,” 159–160.

258

C. Reader’s Guide

outside to subside and return to the sounds of the song sung by poet and mystic alike.10 This song turns back the time and returns to the primordial Torah, which all mystics yearn for, especially pronounced in the school of R. Dov Ber Friedman of Mezrich (Pol. Międzyrzecz; mod. Ukr. Mezhyrichi)11 and its heritage among modern and contemporary mystics. In what follows, I will argue that the remarkable—albeit highly enigmatic—encounters of the Kalisker Rebbe (R.  Abraham ha-Kohen of Kalisk, 1741–4 Shevat 1810) with Reb Nachman of Bratzlav (April 4, 1772–October 16, 1810), in Tiberias manifest a genotextual performance engaged in reenacting the emergence of the symbolic order out of the human expression of channeling divine sonority between tzaddiq and tzaddiq as embedded in the energetic sonority of Torah [hashpa‘at ha-Torah] that begins with conventional language, ultimately transcends it, and yet abides. The accounts of the remarkable encounters that took place between the Kalisker Rebbe and Reb Nachman of Bratzlav in Tiberias ca. 1798 manifest an ecstatic sympathetic resonance through sounds of Torah.12 Although these kinds of ecstatic experiences, by their very nature, elude conventional language, still their traces abide in the hagiographic literature and oral traditions of Bratzlav Hasidism much more so than in the literature of Tiberian Hasidism. Furthermore, these ecstatic experiences of sympathetic resonance are also deserving of deeper analysis and comparison within the school of the Maggid of Mezrich, given that the Kalisker remained his devoted disciple. It is clear that the Kalisker, as the disciple of the Maggid, agrees with his teacher that the path to communion with the Divine requires a shedding of prideful ego. In step with his master, the Kalisker proclaims the necessity of expunging the ego before 10 Ibid., 159–188. 11 See Liqqutim Yekarim, no. 277, 94b–95a; where the primordial Torah, which for the Maggid remains abstract, fluid, and bursting with an infinite number of possibilities, is not entirely pre-linguistic or devoid of specific content. Compare more recently with Zvi Ish-Shalom, The Kedumah Experience: The Primordial Torah (Boulder, CO: Albion Andalus, 2017). 12 Moshe Idel, “‘The Besht Passed his Hand Over his Face’: On the Besht’s Influence on His Followers—Some Remarks,” in After Spirituality: Studies in Mystical Traditions, ed. Philip Wexler and Jonathan Garb (New York: Peter Lang, 2012), 79–106, see also, ibid, Vocal Rites and Broken Theologies: Cleaving to Vocables in R. Israel Ba'al Shem Tov's Mysticism, (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2020)..

Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias

259

the self can receive energy from Torah [hashpa‘at ha-Torah] transmitted in the course of a living encounter of genotextual performance. The mystic in this encounter is akin to the actor-musician, engaged in reenacting the emergence of the symbolic order out of the human expression of channeling divine sonority. The shekhinah emerges through a contemplative attunement, invested in the letters that the mystic contemplates. The visual and audial imagery of the bell illustrates well this ecstatic experience of theurgic influence: That is why the exegesis compared the student of Torah to a golden bell. The bell is the exteriority, while the clapper is nestled in its interiority, enabling the resonance to emerge. “Woven gold is her garment” but “the full glory of the king’s daughter lies within” [Psalms 45:14]. That glory manifests as radical amazement before the divine totality and the Indwelling Presence of shekhinah, within the heart of every god struggler. The “woven gold” are the letters of Torah, in which she is enshrouded. But the pearl-studded clapper [‘inbal] is our immersion within the divine, only possible where there is true humility [‘anavah].13

This remarkable encounter in Tiberias between two mystics—more colleagues than master and disciple in their relationship—raises a challenge in terms of what is transmitted between them. The ecstatic nature of this intimate encounter between two mystics deeply committed to polishing their unique pearl-studded clapper [‘inbal] reveals their essences, as Heidegger says, “like a shrine without a temple.” Through their commitment to cultivating true humility [‘anavah], each mystic remains immersed within the limitless divine energy. One may wonder just how any kind of ecstatic sympathetic resonance can actually be shared if both participants are, in a sense, disappearing in the shrine of each other’s presence? An attempt to unpack the unsaid contents of this experiential encounter between Hasidic mystics requires an acknowledgment that a 13 Yosher Divrei Emet, no. 10, 114; compare with Green, Speaking Torah, vol. 1, 288–290 [translation emended]; see also Miles Krassen, Uniter of Heaven and Earth: Rabbi Meshullam Feibush Heller of Zbarazh and the Rise of Hasidism in Eastern Galicia (New York: SUNY Press, 1998), 10. Ariel Evan Mayse has observed insightfully that the word ‘inbal (“clapper”), when written in consonantal Hebrew, is similar to the word ‘anavah (“humility”).

260

C. Reader’s Guide

predominant Hasidic method for transmitting spiritual energy follows the approach of R. Dov Ber. While Reb Nachman saw himself as a singular spiritual force continuing the teachings of his great grandfather, the Ba‘al Shem Tov, the Kalisker considered himself a disciple of R. Dov Ber. Again, the parable about the bell is helpful here: just like the clapper brings forth sound when it strikes against the external structure of the bell, the letters serve as a linguistic frame and oral medium through which the resonant inner spirit comes to be sonorously revealed. Just like the interior of the bell, one’s spiritual vitality is clothed within a specific experience (be it an oral teaching, a melody, or a tone) being absorbed at that moment. Given the degree to which the cornerstones of R. Dov Ber’s mystical theology and moral teaching are about the practice of nullifying the ego and discarding the shackles of all personal desires,14 it is possible that the encounter between Reb Nachman and the Kalisker was, indeed, a mutual experience of disappearing into each other within the ocean of the divine. In order to analyze this encounter between Reb Nachman and the Kalisker, it is also important to include two additional discourses on sonorous transmission of spiritual vitality: first, as transmitted in the stories about Reb Nachman’s great-grandfather, the BeSh”T; second, Bratzlav hasidic literature’s record of Reb Nachman encountering the Kalisker in Tiberias. The sonorous transmission of spiritual vitality in the BeSh”T’s experience has already been extensively analyzed by Idel.15 The stories of the ailing boy reading gemarah, of R. Joseph Ashkenazi reading Ein Ya‘aqov, and of the BeSh”T himself reading ma‘ase merkavah all point to the transformative power within the grain of the voice. 16 What emerges consistently in each of these stories is the power of dibburim or spoken words.17 The BeSh”T makes the voice—either his own or that of others— reach an apotheosis through quasi-hypnosis.18 In a spiritual or magical process that takes place between rebbe and chasid or tzaddiq and tzaddiq, 14 See R. Dov Ber of Mezrich, Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov (Brooklyn: Kehot Publishing Society, 2003), no. 16:3; Or Torah, no. 462, aggadot, 474. 15 Idel, “‘The Besht Passed his Hand Over his Face,’” 83–91. 16 Ibid., 81. 17 Ibid., 90–91. 18 Ibid., 95.

Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias

261

the BeSh”T consistently facilitates a merging of minds and consciousness, overlaying two or more voices together as one. 19 While the Kalisker arrived in Tiberias during the 1777 Hasidic immigration, Reb Nachman appears to have set out in his journey to Israel during Passover 1798 and arrived at the foot of Mount Carmel on the evening of Rosh ha-Shannah 1799. Reb Nachman demanded anonymity,20 but ultimately he was discovered in Haifa and the Kalisker made several requests to see him.21 Already by Sukkot 1799, Reb Nachman was in Tiberias.22 He entered Prophet Elijah’s cave on Mount Carmel on 18 Tishrei 1799.23 By the day after Simchat Torah, Reb Nachman asked his traveling companion, R.  Yitzchak, to return home to the Diaspora via Istanbul. His companion refused and asked to go back to Tiberias. Reb Nachman agreed to return to the holy city.24 Upon their arrival in Tiberias, the whole town came to greet them, dressed in Sabbath finery on Tuesday, 29 Tishrei 1799. 25 As they settled at different inns, the Kalisker got word of their coming and sent a special emissary26 to explain that he was unable to meet Reb Nachman in person as he was meeting with the tax collector that day. Immediately, Reb Nachman went to visit the Kalisker. Their first encounter is described as follows: They received [Reb Nachman] with great honor, profuse love and a great embrace. The depth of the love and affection that the Kalisker had for Reb Nachman is impossible to describe and recount whatsoever. [The Kalisker] tried to prevail upon Reb Nachman to stay with him as his house guest. But Reb Nachman responded that this was impossible that he should be with him [the Kalisker] permanently, however, he would come by for a Sabbath. Then he left to go back to his inn.27

19 Ibid., 85–86. 20 Schick, Sefer Peʻulat ha-Tzaddiq, no. 207, 126. 21 Ibid., no. 209, 127; compare with Shivchei ha-Ra”N (Jerusalem: Mechon Torat ha-Netzakh Bratzlav, 1991), no. 17, 43–45. 22 Idem, Sefer Peʻulat ha-Tzaddiq, no. 240, 144; Shivchei ha-Ra”N [1991], no.18, 45–47. 23 Idem, Sefer Peʻulat ha-Tzaddiq, no. 241, 144; Shivchei ha-Ra”N [1991], no. 18, 45–47. 24 Idem, Sefer Peʻulat ha-Tzaddiq, no. 243, 145. 25 Ibid., no. 244, 145. 26 Ibid., no. 247,146. 27 Ibid., no. 247, 146.

262

C. Reader’s Guide

As parshat Noach approached, the Kalisker sent another invitation to Reb Nachman to come join him for the Sabbath.28 Reb Nachman accepted the Kalisker’s invitation and joined him for the holy Sabbath, which is described as follows: On the eve of the holy Sabbath, Reb Nachman bowed his head down, so that [the Kalisker] would bless him. And [the Kalisker recoiled and] jumped four ‘amot behind him with great trembling. Then [the Kalisker] began to speak with great enthusiasm so that it was impossible to understand what [the Kalisker] was saying. Yet at the end, we heard [the Kalisker] say: “How overwhelming it is to be in the presence of one who descends from the lineage of the Ba‘al Shem Tov [and bestow the blessing upon him].” And [the Kalisker] did not want to bless [Reb Nachman]. But the companion of Reb Nachman, Reb Yitzchak, who bowed his head, was blessed by [the Kalisker]. .  .  . That Sabbath there was great rejoicing during the meal. The Kalisker asked Reb Nachman to share a word of Torah, but he absolutely refused. So the Kalisker shared a word of Torah in his stead. Again, at the second meal the Kalisker asked Reb Nachman to share a word of Torah. He refused, and the Kalisker again shared a word of Torah in his stead. And so it was during the third meal as well: the Kalisker asked Reb Nachman to share a word of Torah, he refused, and the Kalisker again shared a word of Torah in his stead. The way the Kalisker comported himself in organizing and delivering these teachings was in a hyper-emotional state with great enthusiasm, screaming loudly, to the extent that nothing could be heard, only at the end of his teaching [the Kalisker reflected upon his own impassioned ecstasy and said that] this was the essence of devotion to the divine totality. Reb Nachman praised and lauded this teaching comportment of the Kalisker beyond all measure, unlike any other. (And Reb Nachman once said: “Although I’ve seen many tzaddiqim, but in terms of his wholehearted devotion I have only witnessed this with the holy tzaddiq, R. Abraham of Kalisk).29 28 Ibid., no. 248, 146. 29 Ibid., no. 249, 146–147.

Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias

263

From this ecstatic encounter between Reb Nachman and the Kalisker, one can sense the tempraments at work, so that the spiritual transmission was counterbalanced by the fact that they both were highly evolved mystics, known as tzaddiqim. In stark contrast to the cognitive contemplation of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, here the ecstasy is externalized in an intersubjective magical experience. 30 Upon taking leave of the Kalisker at close of the Sabbath that evening,31 a transformation had taken place. Reb Nachman even returned to the Kalisker the following Sabbath of parshat Lekh Lekha and they spent much time immersed in dialogue together in the private study of the Kalisker.32 Reb Nachman was bedridden a day or so later, and he sent a note requesting a spiritual healing through a redemption of the soul from the Angel of Death to the Kalisker. So the Kalisker visited Reb Nachman daily until his health was restored. “And there was a great love beyond measure between them.”33 What led to Reb Nachman’s near-death experience after his intense encounter with the Kalisker? Upon his return in 1800, Reb Nachman received a letter from the Kalisker as follows: Peace and redemption that rest deep in my heart from the renowned and holy rabbi should be spoken to him, with him is wisdom and divine intuition and spiritual intelligence, dignity and holy be his name, Reb Nachman from the holy Hasidic lineage of the Ba‘al Shem Tov, of blessed memory, may he protect us and his light continually shine. Divine light from him emanates and all his children and those who accompany him, much peace, Amen, if it be the [divine] will. I have received news from the Holy Land that become known from the arrival of an emissary this year in the past month of Shevat. We truly rejoiced upon hearing that your energy flows in peace, and that you returned home safely. And we saw that the interconnected cords of love cannot be shaken, so that with his heart he yearns for our welfare. . . .34

30 Idel, “‘The Besht Passed his Hand Over his Face,’” 81. 31 Schick, Sefer Peʻulat ha-Tzaddiq, no. 250, 147. 32 Ibid., no. 251, 147. 33 Ibid., no. 220, 147. 34 Ibid., no. 326, 183–184.

264

C. Reader’s Guide

This intimate, erotic image of interconnected “cords of love” [ba‘avtot ahava] that “cannot be shaken” is taken from the Prophets (Hosea 11:4). It appears in the Kalisker’s collected homilies, Chesed le-Abraham, as well as in the work of his disciple, R. Tzvi Hirsch of Smotritch in his work Ketem Paz.35 The intertwined relations of deep love shared between the two tzaddiqim were a key to the co-arising of spirituality demonstrated within mystical friendship in the community of Tiberias. Doubtless, some form of “spiritual vitality” [cheyut] was transferred between these friends during these encounters. The nature of this transmission is difficult to ascertain, as the recorded accounts are not very clear on this matter. Moreover, language fails to fully explain this mystic transmission. Clearly, the sympathetic echo of this transmission continued resonating between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman. According to the Kalisker’s master, the Maggid, such transmission stems from the endless sea of divine wisdom, which sparkles through the stream connecting the heart and the mind. The challenge is that while this cheyut may be felt on a primordial, somatic level, the experience eludes linguistic containment, hovering hauntingly beyond words. While the intense divine self-revelation on the Sinai takes place and is recast through the regularly accessible language of Scripture, the linguistic description is not exhaustive, because the ultimate goal of the mystic journey is penimiyyut, the inner dimension of chokhmah expressed through words. If devequt through contemplation of Torah in its most expansive sense reenacts the intimate encounter between God and Israel at Sinai, then even more so, in such moments of sacred encounter between two mystics, the Sinaitic moment pulses and is revitalized through them. In their encounter, these two tzaddiqim rediscover their link to the primordial, pre-linguistic realm of the divine totality. This flood of inspiration and illumination flows through the Kalisker to Reb Nachman. Reb Nachman’s refusal to share words of Torah during the entire Sabbath as well as his request to be blessed all point to something extraordinary, and beyond language, taking place here. In framing the encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman of Bratzlav, it is helpful to recall the Maggid’s framing of sacred study as 35 Ketem Paz authored by R. Tzvi Hirsch of Smotritch will be the focus of volume 4 in this series on Tiberian Hasidism (forthcoming). Smotritch is a small shtetl southeast of Lvov, located north of Komenitz Podolsk.

Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias

265

a textual encounter that is an immediate and personal experience: “Each day they [the words of Torah] be as new as if they were given on that very day.36 Just as [the experience of] Sinai was ‘face to face,’ so too must it be each day as you are studying.”37 Spiritual life entails a direct and intimate meeting with the infinite divine wisdom that reverberates in the words of Scripture. But it is also accessible as well as through every intentional conversation, especially between mystics. The Maggid’s formulation of this encounter as “face to face” echoes the account of the Sinaitic experience in Deuteronomy 5:4, drawing a direct link between the act of study or scholarly conversation and the divine revelation. In addition, the Maggid also invokes the erotic Lurianic terminology for the proper coupling of the sefirot.38 The hieros gamos of the Godhead, echoed by the communion of the student with Torah Herself, takes place as the scholar is devoted to contemplative interpretation with a sense of perpetual newness. The Maggid beckons the student to always remember that new exegesis is a gift: “Even though this is a bit of Torah that no ear has ever heard, it comes not from you, but from God.” 39 This experience of remembering the primordial resonances of what is being renewed through spiritual flow is encapsulated by Mayse in suggesting that: “[n]ew interpretations of Scripture flow into one’s consciousness from the hidden depths of the divine mind. Such innovations in thought are but a bestowal of divine inspiration, and the student must not forget that their ultimate source lies beyond the self.”40 Just as Mayse compares the Maggid’s ability to reach each student according to their capacity with the Zen Buddhist transmission of the koan from master to disciple that reworked the mind of the disciple through contemplation, a similar transmission is present in the encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman. I would argue, however, that its principle has stronger parallels to dibbuq chaverim commonly practiced in Tiberias. The practice of dibbuq chaverim created a vibrant 36 See Deuteronomy 26:16 and RaSh”I ad loc., quoting Tanchuma, Ki Tavo, 1. 37 Liqqutei Amarim, 22–23. See also Liqqutim Yekarim, no. 264, 81b; and Zohar I:90a, 94b, 98b. 38 Shaul Magid, From Metaphysics to Midrash (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008), 43–46. 39 Liqqutim Yekarim, no. 196, 59b. 40 Mayse, Speaking Infinities, 168.

266

C. Reader’s Guide

circle of spiritual power, which strongly resembles the vibrant transmission of cheyut in the encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman. The issue at hand in this remarkable encounter is the attunement to energy transmission that emerges as the ultimate goal of sacred study rather than the study itself. For, according to the Maggid, the cultivation of an attunement to the divine totality in all aspects of the cosmos is inextricably intertwined with one’s experience of reality and everyday encounters. It is highly probable that the Kalisker and Reb Nachman had already realized the elevated state that R. Dov Ber suggests is the height of sacred study. Prior to meeting, the two tzaddiqim had already become enshrouded in the holy words, and during their encounter they moved into each other’s field of energy with the knowledge that it is nothing but God. It is instructive to consider the process of energy transmission by way of transforming one’s “own body into a conduit, through which each of the multiple forms” of divine energy are awakened and united in an encompassing totality of power, enabling this highest and final transfer of spiritual energy. Returning to the religio-cultural context of Hasidism: “[t]his,” claims the Maggid, “is the meaning of ‘the word of YHVH is pure [refined]’41 .  .  . [everything comes] from the supernal Word. ‘Refined’ [tserufah] refers to the person who knows to connect [le-tsaref]42 all words and deeds to the Holy One.”43

Through their mutual spiritual refinement, both the Kalisker and Reb Nachman come to this encounter with a heightened attunement to the world as an ever-reverberating manifestation of the divine totality and its sacred language that enshrouds this reality. These mystics manifest their refined spiritual attunement to the cosmos as saturated with divine vitality. One other teaching of the Maggid about transmission of spiritual energy is most appropriate to a deeper appreciation of this remarkable encounter:

41 Conflation of Proverbs 30:5, II Samuel 22:31 and Psalms 18:31. 42 While the word letzaref is generally translated as “to combine” or “to permutate,” but in this case the Maggid is using it in a slightly different sense, and thus I have emended Mayse’s translation from “purify” to “refine.” 43 Or Torah, no. 317, Pesuqim, 365.

Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias

267

“Make for yourself two trumpets of silver” [Numbers 10:2]. The phrase shtey hatzotzerot, two [forms that come to make up the composition of] trumpets, is to be read as linked with “On the image of the throne an image with the appearance of a human, from above.” [Ezekiel 1:26]. A person is really only made up of dalet and mem, two letters that may be taken to stand for dibbur, speech, and malkhut, the ground of being that dwells within it [but together also composing the word dam, or “blood”]. But when you attach yourself to the blessed Holy One who is the cosmic alef [representing the oneness of all being], you become adam, a fully integrated human being [that is, the divine presence turns “flesh and blood” into humanity]. . . . These are the two hatzotzerot [“trumpets”] of kessef [“silver”]. A person is only hatzi tzurah, a half of the whole form—dam, or blood. But the aleph by itself, as it were, is also an incomplete form. But only when attached to one another are they made whole. Kessef can mean “longing”. When you long for the blessed Holy One, God loves you as well. . . .44

This renowned teaching of the Maggid may help us to understand the remarkable encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman not as a vertical transmission of spiritual energy from above to below, but rather as a horizontal transmission of spiritual energy from one mystic to another. The great love that flows throughout their encounter is a function of longing to have each mystic—who is only hatzi tzurah, a half of the whole form—reunite into the cosmic consciousness of the alef. Normally, such elevated cosmic consciousness remains alone and by itself, but when two mystics meet, this incomplete form can unite with its counterpart. Both the Kalisker and Reb Nachman felt the palpable presence of the Divine as the love supreme flowing reciprocally between them. This horizontal transmission of spiritual energy happened through the embodied experience45 of being face to face where the grain of the voice itself could be heard and seen. The analogy I am invoking here recalls the Maggid’s claim that: “A sage receives energy from the Torah [hashpa‘at ha-Torah] in his/her 44 Green, Speaking Torah, vol. 2, 18–19 [translation emended]. 45 On the primacy of embodied experience for realizing ecstasy in the Kalikser, see Zvi Leshem, “Flipping into Ecstasy: Towards a Syncopal Understanding of Mystical Hasidic Somersaults,” Studia Judaica 17, no. 1 (2014): 157–184.

268

C. Reader’s Guide

eating, and through his/her eating s/he attains Torah. Such a person’s eating is immersion in Torah.” 46 By extension, while eating at the Sabbath table of the Kalisker, Reb Nachman is receiving energy from the Kalisker’s Torah. This Torah emerges from a scream that is incomprehensible and thus pre-linguistic, which is precisely the vehicle for transmitting energy via Torah. For R.  Dov Ber, the process of cultivating the capacity to transmit energy via Torah to another mystic requires visualizing the divine energy or cheyut, as manifest through the physical world and the people around as suffused with it.47 This spiritual methodology of the Maggid is based on an all-encompassing vision of the world as saturated with divinity. If the cosmos reverberates with divine energy and fills all the letters of language with the divine radiance, including those of Sinai, then a mystical encounter is not as surprising as at first blush. I would then agree with Mayse’s conclusion insofar as the Maggid proclaims that “the potential divinity of each and every speech act can be unlocked through intense focus and intention.”48 The encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman is not one that strikes us as an immersion in sacred texts, and yet this encounter opens to a remarkably unrestricted mode of devequt: It is possible to constantly contemplate Torah letters as a divine garment. Even amidst conversation with people, contemplate only the letters that comprise those words being spoken, as they are also derived from the [primordial] twenty-two letters of Torah.49

Since Scripture is a linguistic expression of the divine totality, contemplating its constituent letters within the heart (that is, the seat of mind) allows the mystics to commune with the divine totality even if they are not formally studying. But the Maggid takes this one step further, noting that the letters of all speech are those of Torah. One who meditates upon human words will soon discover that there is Torah within them as well. The Maggid here suggests that spiritual life includes natural vacillation 46 Liqqutei Amarim, 22–23; see also Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 31, 50; Tanchuma, Beshalach 20. See Mekhilta, Beshalach, introduction. See also Zohar II:60b, quoted in Mayse, Speaking Infinities, 287n.54. 47 Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 181, 281–282. 48 Mayse, Speaking Infinities, 171. 49 Or Torah, no. 167, ‘Ekev, bSotah 14a, ad. loc., 217–218.

Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias

269

between the states of qatnut and gadlut, or “constricted” and “expanded” consciousness.50 Moments of heightened awareness, as shared in the encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman, produce great illumination.51 Each mystic brings to such encounters a cultivated attitude of awe before the sublime mystery, so that each of them is able to delve even deeper into the expanse divine Wisdom itself, thus attaining utter rapture. This ecstatic rapture is a process of encountering the great chokhmah beyond the limits of language or active cognition. As both mystics peer into this abyss, each one delights in their not-knowing, overwhelmed by the majesty of the encounter shared between them. This stage of transcending the intellect and stretching beyond words is only temporary, however, for contemplation leads to a still greater level of knowledge as the mystic translates the insights of his/her ineffable encounter into linguistic structures. The mystical encounter is a moment that breathes eternity as a quest without end.52 Within this encounter, both minds are opened and intellects transformed into a channel through which divine chokhmah gushes forth: “Torah is endless [ein sof], for Torah and the blessed Holy One are one. So too will [the properly attuned scholar] earn ‘many words’ [devarim harbeh]53—the depths of Torah—flowing forth like a river constantly and without interruption.”54 I suggest that this very influx of new energy that floods the heart and mind characterizes the texture of the encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman. This kind of tantric energy here is spilling forth from what Hasidism calls qadmut ha-sekhel, the precognizant region of the divine stream uniting the heart and mind, as well as from the divine wisdom concealed within every word of Torah Herself. It is precisely here, at this deeper, pre-conscious level that the encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman takes place, and at the same level—called sod or penimiyyut—within Torah, since both the hearts and minds of 50 On the kabbalistic background to these concepts, see Pachter, “Katnut (‘Smallness’) and Gadlut (‘Greatness’) in Lurianic Kabbalah,” 171–210. 51 Liqqutim Yekarim, no. 74, 14a. 52 Or Torah, no. 151c, Pinechas, 202; Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 114, 187; and Liqqutim Yekarim, no. 72, fol. 14a. 53 I have translated this citation from mAvot 6:1 in line with the interpretation of the Maggid. 54 Liqqutim Yekarim, no. 201, 61a. Cf. ibid., no. 76, fol. 14b.

270

C. Reader’s Guide

the two mystics and Torah are manifestations of the multitiered sefirotic universe that makes up the divine totality. Both human soul and Torah are cast in the divine image, so the mystical journey takes the tzaddiqim back to their common source.55 The sublime flashes of illumination that are the core of their shared creativity, whether spontaneous or deliberate, are transmitted orally through the grain of the voice during the third Sabbath meal and then ultimately formulated into language by the heart and mind and and then through the “letters of thought.” These words, spoken aloud so that they may be conveyed to others, are all that remain in the sparse records of hasidic mystical experiences. The Maggid often compares such generative creativity through the unfolding of language to the divine formation of the world, and it also reenacts the sacred process through which ineffable wisdom is revealed and translated into language at Sinai.56 The encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman, specifically at the third meal, points to this kind of generative oral transmission. This very vitality is embedded in the grain of the voice.57 Again, we return to the link between the emergence of Torah and the processes of human creativity: according to R.  Dov Ber, the act of sacred study recreates the Sinaitic theophany. If this holds true for the encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman, then we can suggest that one who approaches Torah with both a contemplative heart and mind can carry forward the transmission of the divine voice in the present moment. Such transmission happended in the conversation between the two tzaddiqim and especially during the revelation of Torah at the Sabbathʼs third meal. These acoustic experiences provided an echo chamber for the reverberation of “deeper discernment” [binah yeterah]. The precise musical attunement achieved in this process allowed the two tzaddiqim to enter the state of “you shall hear My voice”—namely, as if God was speaking to them.58 The conversation between the Kalisker and 55 Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, nos. 25, 41, on creative study as giving new mochin (“cognitive vitality”) to the words of Torah, quoted in Mayse, Speaking Infinities, 287n.68. 56 Liqqutei Amarim, 20–21. 57 Michael Szekely, “Gesture, Pulsion, Grain,” 5; Symonds, “The Corporeality of Musical Expression,” 167–181. 58 The Maggid is interpreting the verse as, “If you listen, then you will hear My voice.” See Dibrat Shelomoh, Yitro, 170. Cf. Or Torah, no. 92, Beshalach, 128; and Or ha-Emet, 58c. For a disciple of the Maggid interpreting this verse as a mandate to hear God’s

Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias

271

Reb Nachman aligned with the frequency of the Sinaitic revelation and transcended the cognitive boundaries of the human mind. The innovations [chiddushim] rushing forth from the primordial heart and mind [qadmut ha-sekhel] were so rapid at that third Sabbath meal that they could not be grasped cognitively in the moment. And yet, this state of not-knowing is precisely what Reb Nachman embraces, as the heart to heart transmission overrides any attempt at a cognitive one. Attunement to the inner divinity of such language, especially at that propitious moment of the third Sabbath meal, generated an outpouring of creative vitality, extending the one-time event of Sinaitic revelation59 into the encounter between the two tzaddiqim in Tiberias.60 Perhaps, it is best to describe the ineffable encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman as a meeting of two heart-minds so attuned to qadmut ha-sekhel as the fountain of creativity beyond the linguistic frameworks necessary for purposeful intellection. The flash of inspiration must be turned over and contemplated before it can be communicated, as confirmed by the Kalisker a year after their ecstatic encounter: If an idea [sekhel] suddenly occurs to someone,61 and he does not know what to do with it, he should begin to clarify it. He contradicts it, and then holds it up once more, breaking down [the idea] and then building it up. [This is] the secret of “touching and not touching,”62 [which continues] until he fashions a garment and a contracted vessel for the idea. 63

voice in all human conversations, see Or ha-Me’ir, vol. 1, Yitro, 141. See also Liqqutei Amarim, 40, quoted in Mayse, Speaking Infinities, 287n.71. 59 See Ariel Evan Mayse, “The Voices of Moses: Theologies of Revelation in an Early Hasidic Circle,” Harvard Theological Review 112, no. 1 (2019): 101–125 60 Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 180, 281. 61 Hebrew kshe-nofel le-adam sekhel kol de-hu, perhaps a translation of the Yiddish verb aynfallen [“to occur to”]. The Maggid uses similar terms in describing how “strange thoughts” [machshavot zarot] spontaneously appear in the mind. 62 Cf. yChagigah 2:1; inter alia, Zohar I:16b, quoted in Mayse, Speaking Infinities, 288n.74. 63 Or ha-Emet, 24b; and cf. Kitvei Qodesh, 19a. On the kabbalistic background, see ‘Etz Chayyim, 6:3; Sefer ha-Derushim, derush ‘olam ha-‘aqqudim, 13–16; Yosef Avivi, Kabbala Luriana [Heb.] (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzchaq Ben-Tzvi, 2008), vol. 3, 1351–1352; Lawrenc Fine, Physician of the Soul (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003), 134–135; Maggid, From Metaphysics to Midrash, 23.

272

C. Reader’s Guide

While the only record of their Tiberias encounter remains in the correspondence between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman, what is evident here is that inspiration, as the Maggid argues, is not always tied to a text. Rather, in this case, the transmission of energy is the result of spontaneous generation, a divine gift bestowed upon and shared between the mystics in an eternal moment of loving grace that made that third Sabbath meal a token of divine affection. Between the hushed murmurs and the ecstatic screams of the contemplative mind,64 some form of divine energy was indeed shared in its transmission “from the precognizant mind” [qadmut ha-sekhel].65 This spark of illumination, here associated with chokhmah, enlightens the mystic’s mind and clears away the seemingly insurmountable difficulties of merging, even if for a short while. The mystical contemplative process sparks a flash of inspiration, once described by Maimonides and now the Maggid as a bolt of lightning, which resembles the energy transmission from the Kalisker to Reb Nachman. While he himself remained immersed in the creative process, Reb Nachman experienced this transmission of energy from the Kalisker and, thanks to it, was able to journey to the origins of speech and beyond. While the cognizant mind is disrupted and perplexed in the moment of transmission, the precognizant mind absorbs the peak of the creative process now revealed through the release of the internalized energy. The encounter of two mystics holds great potential for revelation. Given the creative natures of Reb Nachman and the Kalisker, one would expect that their encounter would be filled with innovate ways of perceiving Torah known as chiddushim. It comes as little surprise that, according to the Maggid, chiddushim and their transmission transform the very mystic who transfers them. Every new interpretation of Torah begins as an “inner light” known as penim and then transforms into a maqif, an “encompassing light” that surrounds the person in whom it originated.66 64 See Or ha-Emet, 62b. 65 Ibid., 58a. 66 Ibid., 62a. See also the version of this teaching from Kedushat Levi, Purim, 366. cf. bMenachot 68b. On the concept of a maqif, see Pardes Rimmonim 2:7, 6:3, 29:1; and inter alia, ‘Etz Chayyim, Sha‘ar ha-Kelalim, ch. 1, 1:4; Avivi, Kabbala Luriania, vol. 3, 1420–1422, 1449; Chesed le-Abraham, 4:11, 5:31, quoted in Mayse, Speaking Infinities, 288n.92.

Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias

273

This radiant aura may even be communicated to others, kindling a chain reaction of joy that begins within the individual human heart and extends forth to others as it is communicated in language. I argue that this is what took place in the encounter between the Kalisker and Rebbe Nachman, namely, that each of them became enveloped in the cloud of illumination formed by each word spoken with devotional longing and truth shared in the presence of each other.67 Moreover, each of these mystics experienced conscious suffering and humiliations in their journeys so that this encounter allowed them to enter the non-dual regions of the Godhead described as the “one who enters Torah, where there is no brokenness, becomes totally free.”68 This realm of spiritual renaissance, found in the innermost reaches of the text and the self, requires a deeply shared contemplative attunement that shepherds forth a new host of meanings, inspiration, and healing for these broken healers. Keep in mind that these broken healers are tzaddiqim of their respective times and places, one from the Land of Israel and the other from the Diaspora. Recall R. Dov Ber’s description of the master’s relationship to the disciple as parallel to that of God and the tzaddiq. The divine mind contracted into language and was poured through the “funnel” of words and letters that now inhabit the mystic’s thoughts. Contemplating this revelatory act of self-limitation allows the mystic to pierce through normative language and reclaim the sacred vitality within the linguistic boundaries and beyond, in the precognizant, primordial Torah. The spiritual atmosphere of this remarkable encounter takes place during the third Sabbath meal, a truly revelatory moment, akin to the giving of the Torah at Sinai. If the tzaddiq is “speaking Torah,” then this encounter between the two tzaddiqim is but another stage in divine Revelation and the constant unfolding of the divine Word that emerged at Sinai.69 One particularly well-known and oft-quoted tradition, pre-

67 Or ha-Emet, 66a. 68 Liqqutei Amarim, 20–21. See mAvot 6:2, based on Exodus 32:16. Cf. Leviticus Rabbah 18:3. 69 See Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 474; Green, “Hasidic Homily,” 241–242; Vilensky, Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 2, 317–318, quoted in Mayse, Speaking Infinities, 289n.120.

274

C. Reader’s Guide

served by a disciple of the Maggid, offers some personal reflections on how one may prepare for such moments: Once I heard the Maggid say to us explicitly, “I will teach you the best way to speak Torah. You must not sense yourself as being anything at all. Be a listening ear attuned to the way the World of Speech is speaking in you, for you yourself are not speaking. As soon as you hear your own words, stop.” We saw this many times, for when [the Maggid] opened his mouth to speak, it was as if he was not of this world at all. Shekhinah was speaking from within his throat.70 Sometimes he would stop and wait for a while, even in the middle of an idea or a word.71

To “speak Torah,” claims the Maggid, one must transcend the confines of self. This returns us to the image of the bell and the clapper. The sympathetic resonance that emerges in the process of transmitting spiritual energy on this level requires both tzaddiqim to dissolve into the unitive sounds being shared. Just as a teacher, notes the Maggid, may become so enraptured by his own contemplative meditation that his ability to converse with others melts away, here the mystics experience merging with each other. Between a teacher and his students, the transmission of spiritual energy is usually seen as a sort of “descent,” as the teacher cuts short the meditative journey in order to share his wisdom with others. But in this case of two equal tzaddiqim, it is a question of enhancing the sympathetic resonance. So when Reb Nachman is in the presence of the Kalisker speaking primordial Torah, each one uplifts the other in the process of transmitting the dynamic energy of chokhmah— the unformed and pre-linguistic potential of ideas as energy. What transpires between these two mystics appears to be a supportive process of coming into binah—the region of conscious intellection. That flash of the Kalisker’s creativity retains its luster not only within the mind in which it was originally conceived, but, in this case, it is also shared in transmission with a mystic of equal stature.72 If we assume that both 70 Medieval kabbalistic literature generally attributes this prophetic state to Moses. See Mayse, Speaking Infinities, 289n.121. 71 Or ha-Me’ir, vol. 1, Tzav, 213. 72 Although this subtle inspiration cannot ever be fully communicated, as expressed in Or ha-Emet, 20d, I am suggesting that it can be subtly shared in transmission between advanced mystics.

Genotextual Performance between Tzaddiqim in Tiberias

275

the Kalisker and Reb Nachman cultivated the spiritual persona of the tzaddiq through and through, then, as the Maggid claims, each of them receives from this transmission new elements of the divine wisdom and secrets of Torah flowing from one heart to another in this intimate moment of interconnectivity.73 While a master can reveal more of his/her expansive wisdom to their advanced students,74 I would argue that the revelation is much more significant with colleagues of equal or greater stature. This astonishing capacity to transmit multivalent Torah was witnessed by Solomon Maimon during his brief stay in Mezrich, when he personally heard a teaching from the Maggid.75 This capacity is also confirmed by the Maggid’s student, R. Ze’ev Wolf of Zhitomir,76 and his great-grandson, R. Yisra’el of Ruzhin.77 If each tzaddiq is linked to a particular “facet” or way of approaching Torah, then an encounter between them reveals the depth of their interconnectivity, colored by the manner and capacity to receive and share spiritual energy. The remarkable encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman raises the question of how spiritual energy is transmitted and shared between mystics. Language serves as a channel necessary for the exchange of ideas between these two unique personae, while precognizant wisdom can be shared at a higher level of intensity, neither attenuated nor articulated in language. In this remarkable mystical encounter, the transmission of spiritual energy follows the Maggid’s methodology. Importantly, the Maggid is also concerned with the transmission of energy and the need for proper channeling and delimitation when higher energy descends into constricted vessels.78 Thus, constriction and humility are the starting point of the road to this ecstatic knowledge. In sum, I have attempted to show a different expression underlying this remarkable encounter of genotextual performance between tzaddiq 73 Or ha-Emet, no. 103, Tetzaveh, 143; Liqqutim Yekarim, no. 285, 106b. See Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 38. 74 Liqqutim Yekarim, no. 285, 106b. See Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 38. 75 Maimon, Autobiography, 169. 76 Or ha-Me’ir, vol. 2, Devarim, 160. See also Gellman, Hasidism in Poland, 169n.114. 77 ‘Irin Qaddishin, vol. 1, Shavu‘ot, 205. 78 Liqqutei Amarim, nos. 113, 118, 134, 166. Concluding the teaching no. 166, the Maggid does allude to the transfer of spiritual energy without contraction at the highest root level of the soul. Compare with Or Torah, nos. 105, 143, 157, 248, 255, 356; Or ha-Emet, nos. 34, 54, 55, 63.

276

C. Reader’s Guide

and tzaddiq. It constitutes a remarkable encounter insofar as it is engaged in reenacting the emergence of the symbolic order out of the human channeling of divine sonority as embedded in the energetic sonority of Torah [hashpa‘at ha-Torah]. In this mystical encounter between the Kalisker and Reb Nachman in Tiberias, there is an apotheosis of voices, wherein the radiant auras of two tzaddiqim becomes transformed into an encompassing light [maqif], that surrounds the one in whom it originated. The divine wisdom appears unveiled, “like a shrine without a temple”. As both the Kalisker and Reb Nachman open to enable the ecstatic nature of this intimate encounter, they both remain deeply committed to polishing their unique pearl-studded clapper [‘inbal] through a mutual commitment to cultivating true humility [‘anavah]. Ringing the bell of primordial Torah within the soul of each tzaddiq enables a deep theurgic and sympathetic resonance. Such a remarkable encounter is a genotextual performance that recreates the symbolic order of divine sonority embodied as the song that is Torah.

Translators’ Introduction Aubrey L. Glazer and Nehemia Polen

Translation is the art of interpretation. As Walter Benjamin astutely noted in his masterful 1923 essay, “The Task of the Translator”: Therefore, it is not the highest praise of a translation, particularly in the age of its origin, to say that it reads as if it had originally been written in that language. Rather, the significance of fidelity as ensured by literalness is that the work reflects the great longing for linguistic complementation. A real translation is transparent; it does not cover the original, does not black its light, but allows the pure language, as though reinforced by its own medium to shine on the original all the more fully. This may be achieved, above all, by a literal rendering of the syntax, which proves words rather than sentences to be the primary element of the translator. For if the sentence is the wall before the language of the original, literalness is the arcade.1

We have taken to heart Benjamin’s suggestion to be “transparent” while “longing for linguistic completion” in these translations. This requires both a withdrawal and an expansion, as Benjamin lusciously invokes the Kabbalistic doctrine, according to which the ideal primordial vessels were broken releasing scattered sparks of light that must be collected in order to usher in the Messianic time: In the same way a translation, instead of resembling the meaning of the original, must lovingly and in detail incorporate the original’s mode of signification, thus making both the original and the translation 1 Walter Benjamin, “The Task of the Translator” (1923), trans. Harry Zohn (1968), in The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti (London: Routledge, 2000).

280

D. Chesed le-Abraham

recognizable as fragments of a greater language, just as fragments are part of a vessel.2

These fragments of a greater language bring the reader to expect the unexpected, and then realize that “fidelity and freedom in translation” are not conflicting tendencies but a creative tension throughout. So, we urge the reader to consult with the extensive annotations in the footnotes as well as the glossary for the more literal renderings amidst the range of meanings. The body of the translated text, however, will endeavor to be not only transparent but also allow “the pure language . . . to shine on the original more fully.” In so doing, the intention is to present these timeless texts of spiritual evolution and direction to contemporary readers from both a particularist and a universalist background, to touch both the philosopher and the devoted one , to provoke, at once, the metaphysician and the mystic. The assumption is that mystics, regardless of their traditions and the framework of their religious cultures all look back at a universal ground of experience, which is available to any seeker who has knowledge of it and seeks to look in that direction. This universal ground of being is mediated by tradition and expressed in ways that are meaningful to that tradition, but it is always rooted in a cosmic gnosis. Notwithstanding this approach, the language of the fragmentary homilies herein translated is profoundly terse and often highly esoteric. Here, we will attempt to elucidate this terse style common to the esoteric tradition. In the Kalisker’s homilies and letters, some of the most recurrent terms include: chokhmah, devequt, qatnut, gadlut, dibbuq chaverim, hasagat ha-ayin, hitlahabut, and emunah. In the Kabbalistic tradition, Chokhmah is the divine sphere [sefirah] of “wisdom” and “thought.” The Kalisker’s usage of this term is deeply embedded in its kabbalistic source, but in the thirty-nine occurences of this term in these homilies, the Kalisker’s reading extends to a concern with contemplative practice of that mystical force that enlivens every sentient thing in the universe. As such, the mystical quest of contemplating chokhmah seeks to shed all the delights of this world in order to immerse within its sphere. This immersion process is known as devequt, whereby the Kalisker echoes the extreme mystical doctrines of his master Dov Ber and, by extension, the Ba‘al Shem Tov. In spite of the popularization of 2 Ibid.

Translators’ Introduction

281

devequt by the BeSh”T and his followers, the concern of the Kalisker and his intimate fellowship of practitioners is their earnest awareness of the oscillating nature of such spiritual immersion—no human being could continually maintain such an immersive devequt state in divine consciousness. This constant falling from devequt produces a melancholic state of estrangement referred to as “constricted consciousness” or “small mind” [qatnut] as opposed to “expanded consciousness” or “expanded mind” [gadlut]. Given the reality that human spiritual vitality is always subject to such oscillation, the Kalisker contributes a novel interpretation of qatnut. It is no longer a negative spiritual state, but the key to a positive social value of “mutual attachment of friends” [dibbuq chaverim]. Mystical experience in the form of “ecstatic enthusiasm” [hitlahabut], as well as its associated state of hasagat ha-ayin (encapsulated by Job 28:12, which in the sermons quoted five times)—the achievement of the mystical nihil—are also recurring stations along this spiritual path. Like the Vitebsker, his spiritual partner co-leading the community of Tiberian Hasidism, the Kalisker uses flexible and multivalent language. For example, the twenty-three usages of emunah by the Kalisker have proven most challenging to render in English, but depending on the context, we have approximated emunah as denoting a spiritual support system, spiritual practice, training, or simply deep-rooted conviction. The quality of the unknown and the beckoning that undergirds the core of emunah, opening the way to the unknown and inexhaustible is lost, when emunah is translated merely as “faith” or “belief.” As one contemporary thinker suggests, we are speaking here “of intimations that border on convictions and lead to belief systems.” When speaking of faith or belief, too often these approximations substitute “ongoing originary intimations.”3 Also, the fourteen usages of “connectivity” (hitQaSHRut, mitQaSHeR,  lehitQaSHeR)  prove important in articulating an abiding concern for spiritual fellowship. Each of these key terms helps formulate and shape the nature of mystical experience within the context of intimate fellowship in Tiberias. Whereas most Hasidic courts that began to arise generations after the Ba‘al Shev Tov were focused on limiting the intimate exposure between tzaddiq and chasid, here, by contrast, there is a real focus on true 3 Michael Eigen, Kabbalah and Psychoanalysis (London: Karnac Publications, 2012), 43.

282

D. Chesed le-Abraham

fellowship, and ecstatic devotion of the individual seeker takes on a central role. This deep concern with interpersonal connections shapes the transpersonal mystical experience. A true ecstatic, singular in his devotion, there is something to Reb Nachman of Bratzlav’s comment upon his mysterious encounter with the Kalisker, when he exclaimed: “Although I’ve seen many tzaddiqim, I have only witnessed truly integrated spirituality—the holy tzaddiq, R. Abraham of Kalisk.”4 Aside from his letters of love written in tandem with the Vitebsker, all that remains are only some of Kalisker’s teachings that appear in written form in Chesed le-Abraham. The printing history of Chesed le-Abraham features the following editions: Chernovitz (1851); Lviv (1858, 1860, 1864); Warsaw (1883). More recent editions include: Sifre Tzaddiqim— Merkaz Ohev Yisra’el (1994); Mekhon Peri ha-Aretz (2010) annotated edition with commentary of Or ha-Chesed. The circulating edition of Chesed le-Abraham only includes about twelve pages of what are apparently sermons based on the weekly Torah readings (27a–32b), as well as an anthology of early Hasidic teachings that round out the collection, including selected teachings of R. Abraham the Angel and R. Barukh of Miedzyborz respectively; Sod Echad de-Qri’at Shema by R. David of Michaliv; Ma‘ase Mishkan by R. Shmu’el of Kaminka; Mikhtav Qodesh of R. Pinechas of Koretz; Be’ur ‘Eser Sefirot ‘al Derekh ha-‘Avodah by R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady; Seder Netillat Yadayim attributed to the BeSh”T and R. Mordekhai of Chernobyl; Kavvanat ha-Mivkeh by R. Abraham the Angel. The introduction to Chesed le-Abraham explains that these homilies were first brought to the printer at the request of R. Barukh of Miedzyborz, son of the BeSh”T. It must be duly acknowledged that while the act of translation can be a solitary act, this has been a collaborative effort between Aubrey and Nehemia. This project was also furthered by many study partners to whom Aubrey is grateful for having contributed to a refined understanding of these terse esoteric teachings, including Miles Krassen and David Greenstein. Special thanks to Tzevi Leshem for his generous assistance in locating all the extant early printed editions of Chesed le-Abraham in the National Library (Hebrew University, Jerusalem). 4 Schick, Sefer Peʻulat ha-Tzaddiq, no. 249, 146–147. See also earlier parallel accounts in R. Natan of Nemirov, Sefer ha-Aretz ha-Qodesh, ch. 7, 100–103 and 106–110.

Chesed le-Abraham

[1.1]. Parshat Lekh Lekha (Genesis 12:1–17:27) INTRODUCTION TO HOMILY: When the emotional value of Love as a manifestation of the spiritual sphere of Compassion is truly embodied, then a spiritual avatar like Abraham can emerge. Only then it is possible to consider the path of life and teaching in the form of Torah, which is given to the human being in the terrestrial realm where these core values are embodied. To walk in the Abrahamic pathway is to be compassionate and to overflow with senseless Love.

[1.2]. Parshat Lekh Lekha (Genesis 12:1–17:27) HOMILY: “I will bless those who bless you/And the one who damns you, shall I curse; / [And all the families of the earth/Shall bless themselves by you].”1 The [Kalisker opened his] teaching by focusing on [the following contrast of plural versus singular conjugation]: “those [plural] who bless you” while “the one [singular] who damns you”. Furthermore, [the Kalisker noted how] the word choice here [in the latter part of the verse]: “And those who damn you” [is followed by a seemingly unrelated verb conjugated as] “shall I curse” rather than saying: “And those who damn you,

1 Genesis 12:3.

284

D. Chesed le-Abraham

shall I damn” so as to follow [the consistency of verb choice in the first] example of “I will bless those who bless you.” So let us now explicate this according to the contextual meaning of the verse. Behold that in the very formulation of the blessing it says: “I will bless” before mentioning “those who bless you.” The blessing is paid forward even before they will be blessed. The blessed Holy One is intertwined with the very act of blessing, whereas the divine curse only follows the curse of others. Although others may only hold the thought of blessing you, there is still credit for a good thought, even if it is not followed through in deed.2 [God gives you a break with an evil thought; there is no demerit, so long as that evil thought is not acted upon.3 Demerit only happens after acting upon an evil thought.] For the sake of this core value of Abraham—Chesed (Compassion)— is he called “My lover [ohavi]”4—that is, the one with the capacity to love all creatures, even the errant. [Ahavah (Love) is seen as a degree of Chesed (Compassion)]. Some good resides within every creature, [and because of this every creature has the right] to love; punishment was never sought or desired. For as Scripture teaches: “To punish the innocent is surely not right.”5 [Further on the homily explains how the punishment of the wicked is enacted through the spiritual quality of Gevurah (Judgment), which brings with it a revelation of the sacred. Thus, it is fitting to intertwine it with the core spiritual qualities of Compassion and Love]. We find a similar situation even regarding animals that had no desire to be party to evil. [In an attempt to rid the Israelites of idolatrous tendencies with the cult of Ba‘al, Prophet Elijah brings forth two bulls, each one to test out the viability of the respective worship]. Elijah, for example, said: “Choose one bull and prepare it first, for you are the majority,”6 and so the blessed Sages teach that the animals’ inner vitality itself refused to be offered for the sake of 2 bKedushin 40a. 3 This is different from a distracting thought [machshavot zarot] in prayer. The context here relates to thinking about others. 4 “But you, Israel, My servant, / Jacob, whom I have chosen, / Seed of Abraham My lover” (Isaiah 41:8). 5 “To punish the innocent is surely not right, / Or to flog the great for their uprightness” (Proverbs 17:26). 6 “Choose one bull and prepare it first, for you are the majority; [invoke your god by name, but apply no fire]” (I Kings 18:25).

Chesed le-Abraham

285

evil. This resistance continued until Elijah convinced the animals that their self-offering would enable the divine name to become sanctified.7 The difference between good and evil will thus be evident to all. And similarly, in this way did the blessed Holy One promise Abraham that the world would continue after him [even the Other side (of evil) would eventually be drawn to him, just like the bulls of Elijah]. For: “I will bless”—this describes a pool of blessing and its flow! As for “those who damn you” [which is the existence of evil], this too is desired by the blessed Holy One. [Even this oppositional force of cursing is part of a providential plan, as it secures the eventual downfall of the one who is cursing.] This is why in the latter part of the verse “And the one who damns you, shall I curse” appear the words “shall I curse” [a’or]—this expression can also be understood as “light” that emerges through the downfall of the “cursed,” illuminating ways for others to walk by the luminosity of the divine totality, the light of life. For even someone whose basic character is one of unconditional love, such a person must be discriminating with such love [ahava], always tempering it with transparency [yir’ah] and rigor [gevurah]. So shall the divine Name become beloved and sanctified: when the world sees how the cursed fall, “everyone will hearken and be aware of the divine.”8 This leads us to a new understanding as to why the verse reads, “And all the families of the earth / Shall bless themselves by you”9—by the downfall of evil, namely, even those bound to the grosser levels of life will be drawn to your blessing. Those coarsened beings who are neither cognizant nor attuned to divine holiness shall be aroused to follow your path, as the verse states, “come, let us all journey in the light of the divine.”10 [From the emergence of this illumination in the terrestrial realm, despite the coarseness of the beings occupying it, the homily now shifts to the nature of this light transmitted through Torah.] Notice how the blessed

7 Numbers Rabbah 23:9. 8 Literally, “All the people will hear and be afraid and will not act presumptuously again” (Deuteronomy 17:13). 9 Genesis 12:3. 10 Literally, “O house of Jacob, come all, and let us walk in the light of YHVH” (Isaiah 2:5).

286

D. Chesed le-Abraham

Sages teach about Revelation11 through the verse, “My soul expired when he spoke,”12 to allude to that moment when the souls of Israelites experienced a kind of spiritual death only to be reborn through the resurrecting dew. How then is this resurrecting dew supposed to be understood? The matter is explained through another verse, “the mane of his hair black as the raven”13 in its context.14 Juxtapose this with another verse describing “His garment was like white snow, / And the hair of His head was like lamb’s wool.”15 [There appears to be a contradiction of color attribution in regards to his hair within these verses—is it white or is it black?] In order to understand the matter more clearly, it was garbed in simplistic language to allay the fear of transgressing [the third of the Maimonidean] thirteen principles stating: “there is no form nor body to the One”!16 If so, why then does the language of the verse blatantly use such anthropomorphic imagery? [Specifically, that “the hair of His head was like lamb’s wool or “the mane of his hair black as the raven.”] The blessed Sages also state: “At the Red Sea, the blessed Holy One appeared as a youthful warrior, while at Mt. Sinai the Holy One appeared as an elder in a meditative pose.”17 There

11 bShabbat 88b. 12 Alternately rendered, “How I wanted him when he spoke!” (Song of Songs 5:6). 13 “[His head is burnished gold], the mane of his hair black as the raven” (Song of Songs 5:11). 14 Song of Songs 5:11. See also RaSh”I ad loc.: “‘the mane of his hair’—in medieval French, flozels [contemporary French, boucles, mèches], meaning ‘curls,’ ‘locks’; ‘black as the raven’—such is the measure of beauty in youth.” 15 “[As I looked on, / Thrones were set in place, / And the Ancient of Days took His seat.] / His garment was like white snow, / And the hair of His head was like lamb’s wool. / [His throne was tongues of flame; / Its wheels were blazing fire]” (Daniel 7:9). 16 On the attribution of these thirteen principles to Maimonides and its implications, see Arthur Hyman, “Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles,” Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambrige, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 119–144; S. Goldman, “The Halachic Foundation of Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles,” Essays Presented to Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. H. J. Zimmels, J. Rabbinowitz and I. Finestein (London: Soncino, 1967), 117–118; Warren Ze’ev Harvey, “A Third Approach to Maimonides’ Cosmogony-Prophetology Puzzle,” Harvard Theological Review 74, no. 3 (1981): 287–301; Marc B. Shapiro, “The Last Word in Jewish Theology? (Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles),’” The Torah u-Madda Journal 4 (1993): 187–242; idem, The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised (London: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004). 17 Mekhilta, Yitro 20:3.

Chesed le-Abraham

287

is more than meets the eye for those who understand the esoteric tradition, with so many deep secrets integrated here. But we will endeavor to explain it in a more direct manner, so that even those with constricted consciousness will understand. Recall that “the the blessed Holy One revealed Torah as black fire upon white fire.”18 [There are two categories of luminosity that are referred to as black and white: total darkness and complete light, both of whihch are reflections of the divine.19] Black [symbolizing youth]—the fullness of all color—is the outermost garment of manifest divinity; whereas white [symbolizing elder]—as the absence of all color and emptiness—is the innermost essence of non-manifest divinity. Furthermore, emptiness is the innermost, while manifestation is the outermost garment. This is how color is revealed. [Given this dichotomy,] the blessed Sages then teach that transmitting spiritual truths to students should be done succinctly.20 But what is it then that really differentiates a succinct transmission from a lengthy one? Depending on the capacity of the disciple, what is taught should be garbed in a concise manner, even using anthropomorphic imagery if necessary. For example, if a teacher realizes a disciple’s spiritual intelligence is underdeveloped and thus unable to hold an expansive teaching, then the teacher must use a corporeal image, more comprehensible to such limited capacity.21 This usage of anthropomorphic imagery enables the disciple to understand its inner implication. In explaining this anthropomorphic imagery to the disciple, the teacher remains focused only on the inner meaning, which resonates with a higher spiritual intellect. The teacher deepens their disciple’s mind, indicating that the anthropomorphic desriptions contain a subtle, inner meaning. The disciple only hears the words of the teacher, understanding the parable. However, through the extension of the words spoken, the disciple will begin to understand a further aspect of the implied meaning, which was the teacher’s primary intention. The disciple needs to learn the inner meaning, while the

18 Midrash Tanchuma, Genesis 1:1. 19 Zohar II:84a. 20 bPesahim 3b. 21 On the parable about “the teacher and the student with limited spiritual intellect,” cf. Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, nos. 1, 101, 122.

288

D. Chesed le-Abraham

teacher has no choice but to flesh it out and express the matter in anthropomorphic imagery. Now notice that, when the divine mind desired transmission of the Holy Torah, the Ten Commandments contained the entirety of Oral and Written Torah. Included within them were all the deepest secrets and mysteries, which those Israelite bodies could not fully contain. And so Scripture states: “my soul expired on the spot,”22 that is, through [the intensity of the unified dual command to] “ remember and observe in one utterance.”23 The vibrational depth of such a truth is that the entirety of the Holy Torah simply became unbearable.24 Then, the resuscitating dew from the blessed Holy One descended to resurrect those expired souls. As the Sages remarked, resurrection would take place in the time-thatis-coming from the small bone of the spinal column, which is referred to as the “nut” [luz]. After every other part of the body has decomposed, it is from that residual nut that the whole body will be reconstituted.25 So this bone is called “dew” because reconstitution takes place from this point. All the other limbs are contained within this single bone. Similarly, the Divine Totality brought down the Holy Torah enshrouded in many 22 Song of Songs 5:6. 23 The Kalisker’s ordering of this expression is inverted when compared to its appearance in Shlomo Alkabetz’s sixteenth-century liturgical poem, written in Safed and called Lekha Dodi. There, the expression is “observe [shamor] and remember [zakhor].” Kimelman explains: “Observe” [shamor] and “remember” [zakhor] as follows: “Shabbat is really composed of three Shabbats. The Hebrew for masculine [declension] is zakhar, so zakhor represents the masculine. Shamor is then the feminine. The feminine shamor is identified with the Shabbat of Shabbat eve, represented by Malkhut and called ‘[the Divine] name’ (shem). The masculine zakhor is identified wih the Shabbat of Shabbat day, represented by Tif ’eret and called YHVH. As night precedes day, so shamor preceds zakhor. By observing Shabbat properly, through incorporating both feminine and masculine, Malkhut and Tif ’eret unite with each other, bringing about redemption.” See Kimelman’s commentary in Marc Z Brettler and Lawrence A. Hoffman (eds.), My People’s Prayer Book: Traditional Prayers, Modern Commentaries (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2005), 129–130. The Kalisker’s inverted ordering of “remember” [zakhor] and “observe” [shamor] is curious (beyond a mere acrostic signature of its author) insofar as it suggests a different pathway to redemption than articulated by Alkabetz in sixteenth-century Safed. Why the Kalisker returns to the original rabbinic ordering as articulated by the commentary of RaSh”I on Exodus 20:8 is worthy of further reflection as to how it sets visions of redemption from eigthteenth-century Tiberias into relief by adding a perspective of the sixteenth-century Safed. 24 bRosh ha-Shannah 27a. 25 Genesis Rabbah 28:3.

Chesed le-Abraham

289

garments, so that the Israelites could understand its depth bit by bit, each person according to their own capacity. To claim that Torah is enshrouded in black fire implies that the black curls are contained within it, and so too are the mounds and mounds of instructions containing secrets and mysteries. White fire is the whiteness of the “Head,”26 whereby each and every strand is curled and hollowed out like a pipe. As the blessed Sages explain: each and every follicle shines from its locus and is contained within this darkness.27 This explains why at the Red Sea the Divine Totality was enshrouded as a youthful warrior, to ensure that the manifest form of Torah was bearable. More can then be learnt from our ancestor, Abraham, who preceded the transmission of Holy Torah. How great an effort he made in seeking and searching so deeply within himself and throughout the world, [going through] all its constitutive elements. This search day and night inside himself, his mind, his heart, and all his thoughts facilitated a deeper knowledge of the Divine, so he could understand the Holy Torah and all its implications.28 Through his journey “in stages to the Negev,”29 as recounted in the Zohar, Abraham came to a deeper understanding of the complexity of earthly existence and the vital energy drawn down into the Holy Land.30 Consider how much effort Abraham made to explore these depths, until the blessed Holy One promised him “the Land that I will show you.”31 If that is the case for Abraham, how much more so do we need to make a tremendous effort to really seek out [the deep knowledge] in the “commandment’s lamp and teaching’s illumination.”32 As a result of such devotion, the Divine Totality will then deepen our apperception. To better understand one’s spiritual depths, one must scour deep within [oneself] with [the help of] “commandment’s lamp and teaching’s illumination,”33 as the Sages teach that when someone says: “I’ve searched

26 Zohar II:34a. 27 bBaba Batra 16a. 28 bYomah 28b. 29 Literally, “Then Abraham journeyed by stages toward the Negev” (Genesis 12:9). 30 Zohar I:78a. 31 Genesis 12:1. 32 Literally, “For the commandment is a lamp, / The teaching is a light, / And the way to life is the rebuke that disciplines” (Proverbs 6:23). 33 See note 30.

290

D. Chesed le-Abraham

and I’ve found”34—you must trust them. May each and every one of us merit to grasp according to our spiritual capacity, and may this messianic moment come speedily in our days. [The homily shifts here and explicates at length on the need to reflect upon speech as given to human beings, which allows for a drawing out of holiness and the revealment of the divine illumination]. [The Kalisker] opened [his teaching as follows]: what was transmitted to Abraham was transmitted to his children.35 And regarding Abraham it is written, “I will make of you a great nation . . . and you shall be blessing,”36 and regarding Israel it is written, “For what great nation is there that has a god so close at hand [. . .],”37 and so Scripture states: “May YHVH bless you. . . .”38 Thus far it is the language of the exegesis. Further, the Scripture states: “I YHVH am” stating as well: “You shall have no other. . . .”39 From these two [initial] utterances emitted from the ultimate source of power,40 [there then flowed forth] 248 positive commandments and 360 negative commandments, and the entire Oral Torah, right down to the last novella emanating from a wise student, until the moment of messianic consciousness, as well as all mysteries in their entirety herein contained. It is difficult to apperceive and comprehend such a comprehensive entirety. What, then, is the point of such a transmission [of gnosis] that defies human understanding? The principle at play here is: “In the beginning of creating”41— everything was created for the sake of Israel, which is the beginning.42 The creation of this world, as it unfurls within the universes,43 is for the sake 34 bMegilla 6b. 35 Tanchuma, Lekh Lekha 9. 36 “I will make of you a great nation, / And I will bless you; / I will make your your name great, / And you shall be a blessing” (Genesis 12:2). 37 “For what great nation is there that has a god so close at hand as YHVH our God whenever we call upon this One?” (Deuteronomy 4:7). 38 “May YHVH bless you and protect you!” (Numbers 6: 24). 39 “I YHVH am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage: You shall have no other gods besides Me” (Exodus 20: 1–3). 40 bMakot 24a. 41 Genesis 1:1. 42 Leviticus Rabbah 36:4. 43 See below, parshiyot Pinechas and VaʼEtchanan on the need for a feeling of divine intimacy of non-contextual contraction leading to a deep panentheism that makes possible corporeal devotion.

Chesed le-Abraham

291

of the Knower being known [by those] “Whom I have created, / Formed, and made for My glory.”44 The Central Being has the intelligence to be able to discover this Source of Life so that it may be revealed through humanity. [The homily continues to explain here how the revelation of divine glory, which is supposed to emerge from all universes, eventually comes to rest upon the human being]. What needs to be understood here is how “the Holy One becomes known through twenty-two letters [of the Hebrew alphabet].”45 The power of speech is a distinguishing mark of the human being with the hope that the five vocal articulations46 are used for good and not for evil. Scripture states: “You shall speak of them,”47 which means that the human being was created for the sake of the divine glory, to bring spiritual solace to all creatures through words of teaching, prayer, praise, and gratitude to the blessed Holy One. [Once we come to] see that [language] is not neutral, a choice needs to be made to ensure that [all speech] is used to “Choose life”48—aligning with vitality itself. This is the purpose of creation [namely, for the human being to use its speech in a holy manner so as to reveal the divine glory]. It is precisely to this point that the Talmud refers to regarding the case of the teacher who never engages in idle conversations, rather, everything in this person’s life is directed by whole-hearted intentions.49 Even in mundane matters, this teacher is completely committed to the divine. S/he is already disciplined not to diverge right or left from the divine will—but rather always acting for the divine delight, which is the purpose of being created. And moreover, this teacher’s whole-hearted intention is entirely focused on divine delight, so there is nothing that is mundane—everything is holy language. [If this is the case, then why mention that “Even in mundane matters, this teacher is completely committed to the divine”?] 44 “All who are linked to My Name, / Whom I have created, / Formed, and made for My glory” (Isaiah 43:7). 45 Zohar I:204a. 46 Sefer Yetzirah 3:3. 47 Literally, “Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up.” (Deuteronomy 6:7). 48 “I call heaven and earth to witness against on this day: I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life—if you and your offspring would live” (Deuteronomy 30:19). 49 Maimonides, Hilkhot De‘ot, 2:4.

292

D. Chesed le-Abraham

The truth of the matter is clear: the essence follows the direction of the heart, especially with words. So if one is speaking of mundane matters in a grossly embodied manner, without directing one’s heart to the Divine Totality, then one is not realizing the purpose of being created— to bring glory to the divine delight. This does not qualify as mundane speech whatsoever—for all language is sacred. This is the meaning of the rabbinic teaching: “one should always be [silent as if] mute [regarding unrefined words] in matters of speech,50 as Scripture teaches, ‘speak righteously.’”51 Why then become mute if speech is the very distinction of being human? Rather purify52 the self on all levels53 so that all will become divine even in this temporal realm. It all comes down to the spiritual development of the person rather than the subject matter being discussed. Making oneself mute [must be interpreted considering] that a person whose consciousness is self-centered finds it very challenging to articulate speech from the heart, whether in the mundane or the sacred realms. In that lowly spiritual state, staying mute precludes evil from coming into the world. All the energy of one’s speech is for the beautification of the Creator, in appreciating the splendid nature of the divine creation. In this sense, one resembles being mute, never saying anything except as an adornment of the Creator. No energy remains for improper speech. Nevertheless, a person would be speaking in any way that was necessary, but mundane matters would still be intended for holy purposes. In those moments, when one is not separated from the source, silence is the guiding virtue. This is why those words too are Torah, so the Scripture reminds us: “speak righteously.”54 This is what is meant by the verse, “O YHVH open my lips [so my mouth may declare Your praise]”55—namely, in contemplating creation, one comes to realize that everything was really created for the sake of divine glory, manifest when it is consciously acknowledged and expressed. There is a continuum of energy that spans from world to world, speaking through 50 bHulin 89a. 51 Literally, “O might ones, do you really decree what is just? / Do you judge humankind with equity?” (Psalms 58:2). 52 Purification means non-separation from non-dual reality. 53 Body, mind, and spirit, encompassing all elements of blockage, supporting a selfcentered consciousness, and unable to realize the immediacy of the divine presence. 54 See note 48. 55 Psalms 51:17.

Chesed le-Abraham

293

one’s throat, whereby one’s lips are opened by the divine impulse. This is how a person is able to speak, coming to the root of speech becoming manifest through Torah with the two unified utterances, “I YHVH am” and “You shall have no other.”56 Everything is expressed by and contained within those [utterances]. For the sake of Israel, humanity comes to know the ultimate source. For the sake of the manifest glory of all that can be— the overwhelming greatness of the source—the human has been empowered to reach [the pinnacle of] its soul through the power of language. A creature with that kind of intelligence has the capacity to realize [and reflect] its source. The power of speech is the creative power behind the entirety of all manifestation, as Scripture states: “By the word of YHVH the heavens were made.”57 Recall that a fetus in the womb already knows the entire Torah, but afterwards that knowledge is forgotten when it is knocked out by an angel.58 So the purpose of existence is to remember that moment—when the knowledge of the unborn fetus is not separated from the divine source, even as the fetus is in the process of becoming individuated. The source of the energy coursing through one’s throat into speech is holy energy. Thus, human speech is inseparable from its holy source, which comprises the entire Torah. This is expressed in Scripture, insofar as what is spoken to our patriarch Abraham is also spoken to his children: “For what great nation is there, that has God so close at hand.”59 Everyone is able to apperceive through these words the divinely uttered commands—“I YHVH am” and “You shall have no other.”60 This is an apperception of the entirety of Torah from its root—each person has the cognitive power to grasp the meaning behind these verses. From its root one can restore all of Torah that was already known in the womb. And so Scripture reads, “Be a blessing”—[a

56 See note 37. 57 “By the word of YHVH the heavens were made, / by the breath of YHVH’s mouth, all their host” (Psalms 33:6). 58 bNiddah 30b. 59 “For what great nation is there, that has God so close at hand, as the LORD our God is whensoever we call upon Him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7). 60 “I YHVH am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage: You shall have no other gods besides Me” (Exodus 20:1–3).

294

D. Chesed le-Abraham

phrase that comes] from the epxression “pool [of blessing],”61 drawing forth the divine utterances that comprise the entirety of Torah.

[1.3]. Parshat Lekh Lekha (Genesis 12:1–17:27) SUMMARY OF TEACHING: 1. Every act of blessing or cursing is intertwined with the divine. 2. Evil thoughts not acted upon are not inherently evil. 3. All sentient and presentient beings, even evil ones, can be loved with the love of Abraham. 4. The oppositional force of cursing is part of a providential plan leading to the eventual downfall of the one cursing. 5. Through the downfall of the wicked a divine light of life emerges, illuminating ways for others to walk by. 6. Even those bound to the grosser levels of life will be drawn to the light of blessing. 7. Total darkness and complete light are reflections of the divine experienced through revelation. 8. The vibrational depth of truth within the entirety of the Holy Torah was unbearable to receive as revealed to those who heard it at Sinai. 9. So the divine dew descended to resuscitate these expired souls. 10. As it was with Abraham, searching inside oneself, one’s mind, one’s heart, and the world in all its constitutive elements, facilitates a deeper knowledge of the Divine, including the Holy Torah and all its implications; 11. In his journey through the holy energy drawn down into the Holy Land, Abraham comes to a deeper understanding of the complexity of earthly existence. 12. The Central Being has the intellect to discover the Source of Life to be revealed through humanity. 13. So long as one speaks with a deep devotional consciousness, one’s words are Torah.

61 The words “blessing” (BeRaKha) and “pool” (BeRaiKha) share the common root BRK.

Chesed le-Abraham

295

14. Every created thing is for the sake of divine glory, manifest when it is consciously acknowledged and expressed. 15. Human beings have been empowered to reach their souls through the power of language. 16. Human speech is inseparable from its holy source which comprises the entire Torah. 17. Like Abraham, each deeply devoted person has the cognitive power to become a blessing.

[1.4]. Parshat Lekh Lekha (Genesis 12:1–17:27) QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: 1. Upon reflection it is often clear that our blessings in life are intertwined with the extraordinary. Why, then, is it such a challenge to consider that cursing is also intertwined with the extraordinary, possibly bearing the potential for transformation? 2. When you search deep within, can you develop a deeper sense of your elemental spiritual practice that coincides with or transcends Torah? 3. If all all words are Torah, how can you cultivate a deeper sensitivity to the power of your words in all forms of communication? How would even informal chatter come to constitute words of Torah, teaching, and inspiration as part of your spiritual practice?

296

D. Chesed le-Abraham

[2.1]. Parshat Chayyei Sarah (Genesis 23:1–25:18) INTRODUCTION: Fully conscious perception—namely, spiritual apperception—is a gradual process of ascending and descending towards deeper illumination. As one cultivates awareness of the interconnected nature of Compassion embodied in the love coursing through all spiritual values and experiences of time, one also learns to invert and transform Judgment into Compassion, thus conjoining the human and divine minds. The purpose of spiritual practice is to cultivate an evolving consciousness, ascending step by step, until everything joins the stream of complete Compassion and thus enables apperception.

[2.2]. Parshat Chayyei Sarah (Genesis 23:1–25:18) HOMILY: The [Kalisker] opened his teaching with the verse: “.  .  . and YHVH blessed Abraham in all things.”1 This verse is further elucidated when read along with an earlier verse which states: “Now Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him,”2 as well as the verse: “And when his son was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him.”3 Now, to understand [the power of the creative] word [in the process of creation], this verse also needs to be considered: “. . . from all the work of creation that had been done.”4 Behold: it is known that “In that day . . . there shall be a continuous day—only YHVH knows when—of neither day nor night.”5 Mystics know the spiritual meaning implied here, namely that “day” is that

1 “Abraham was now old, advanced in years, and YHVH blessed Abraham in all things” (Genesis 24:1). 2 Genesis 21:5. 3 “And when his son was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God had commanded him” (Genesis 21:4). 4 “And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that had been done” (Genesis 2:3). 5 “In that day, there shall be neither sunlight nor cold moonlight, / but there shall be a continuous day—only YHVH knows when—of neither day nor night, and there shall be light at eventide” (Zechariah 14:6–7).

Chesed le-Abraham

297

attracting light of Love [Ahavah], while “night” is the distancing darkness of Awe [Yir’ah]. By way of example, in Awe, I seek distance from the person I fear, whereas in Love, I always desire to face the one I truly love and to be conjoined with this person. But it is impossible to have the one without the other. “Day” (Love) and “night” (Awe) define each other and so they must coexist. If I simply love someone, devoid of any awe, then I could love others without being exclusive. There are no limits [to love] without respect. Without awe, I would have no fear of losing that person’s friendship. But if I respect and love that person, then I am cautioned against loving anyone else. In that sense, the respect intrinsic to Awe is what makes Love more grave and thus complete. So, too, Awe alone can be distancing. Something else is required to draw one into a relationship, namely, the desire for Love.6 Thus, there is a necessity to balance and realign the constant juxtaposition of Awe and Love within the devotional life. This only relates to values and time imbued with the aspects of “day” (Love) and “night” (Awe). [Now that the correlation between “day” (Love) and “night” (Awe) has been established as a way to navigate holistic devotion, the homily turns to explicate a higher degree of devotion than the one achieved through these spiritual qualities. This higher degree is beyond the distinction of “night” and “day”, and so it transcends time]. Yet the devotional life is atemporal [that is, beyond the structural confines of time]. In such atemporality, everything is dynamic, without a stark separation between “day” (Love) and “night” (Awe). [Once received,] the insight of devotion’s deeper dynamism that transcends time has to be retranslated back into spatio-temporal practice. However the practice within spatio-temporality may be experienced, the ultimate course of this devotional truth is never conditioned by reality. The danger [of the devotional life, of course] is getting stuck in the fixity of forms. Beyond the perceived conditions of a fixed spatio-temporality lies an inner dynamism, wherein “the living creatures ran and returned.”7 As one merits [to progress from degree to degree, it is possible to cultivate higher spiritual apperceptions]; once that insight [of inner dynamism] is 6 Cf. Tzava’at ha-RIVa”Sh, no. 5, 11b; Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 134 etc. 7 “And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning” (Ezekiel 1:14).

298

D. Chesed le-Abraham

experienced, then the shift [from the mental state of “day” (Love) and “night” (Awe)] into “dusk” [takes place].8 The shift to a higher degree of spiritual apperception is [part of] a process of overall cultivation, whereby the first apperception enters into a fixed state, anchored in the heart, [so that it is no longer in that earlier dynamic flow of “running and returning,” rather] this illumination has descended back into [the more manifest forms of] spiritual qualities and mundane time. [The homily continues to describe this process of ascent and descent, whereby the higher spiritual apperception that allows to see the “running and returning” and transcends the mental distinction of “day” (Love) and “night” (Awe), now opens the way to the next state. In the natural sphere, day and night reflect the shifting quality of light. Their interchange symbolizes going in and out of deeper states of apperception. The mental state of deep apperception is known as “dusk,” wherein Awe and Love are inseparable].9 This shift into “dusk” happens in the blink of an eye, wherein one [point of illumination] enters and the other departs.10 [At this stage, which] one is elevated above the spheres of spiritual values and mundane temporality, so it is no longer possible to refer to it as “day and night incessant”11 in their fixed [distinction]. Rather, it [this stage] is referred to as “the rise in illumination and clarity and the setting of the sun”—this is [the mental state “between the rising and setting of the sun”] known as “dusk.” This is where the gnostic quality of day is conjoined with night and night is conjoined with day so that they are completely integrated. The devoted ones remain in such a spiritual state. They have the capacity, while engaged in spiritual apperception, to conjoin opposing spiritual values. In this way, they can ascend to the Mount of Awe and Transparency,12 where they achieve a higher state of [integrated] insight. 8 bBerakhot 2b. 9 The period “between the suns” (that is, the sun and the moon) is technically called dusk, but it is the period between day and night. It is being used here to refer to a contemplative mind-state where an insight informs devotional practice. That insight shifts from “dusk” and is integrated into either “day” or “night” states. 10 bBerakhot 2b. 11 Literally, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22). 12 Mount Moriyah, mentioned in Genesis, is the mountain of Awe (yir’ah). Another etymology connects the name of the mountain with a homonymic word yir’ah (vision, transparency). This approach is derived from Genesis 22:14: be-har Adonai yireh, that is, “on the mount of the YHVH there is vision.”

Chesed le-Abraham

299

Since the devoted ones transcend time and spiritual qualia, it is impossible to categorize them according to the fixed states of “day” or “night.” The spiritual condition of “dusk” is the place of vision, whereby the devoted ones [who have the capacity to conjoin the spiritual values of Judgment and Compassion] are able to invert and transform Din (Judgment) into Rachamim (Compassion).13 This explains why the Talmud teaches [that the mystic sanctifies the wine for Sabbath in this spiritual state of “dusk,” so that] such a devoted one becomes a partner of the divine mind involved in the creative process.14 [In cultivating the consciousness of “dusk,” one enters into the divine mind.] In the creative process, the divine mind realizes that a world founded upon Judgment alone would not stand; so Judgment has to be mixed with Compassion. Then, the contemplative ascent for the devoted one is the channeling of Compassion into the world, ameliorating its harsh core. Ascending above the consciousness of space and time, and its spiritual qualia, the devoted one can rectify consciousness instantaneously in the blink of an eye. [As one concludes the sanctification of the wine for Sabbath at the hour of “dusk,” what now emerges is] the real meaning behind the verse: “. . . from all the work of creation that had been done by Elohim [the divine name symbolizing Judgment]”15—namely, that the Emanator brought divine favor and joy out of the stream of eternal bliss [where no Judgment abides whatsoever]. The contemplative attachment of the devoted ones to the supernal world is achieved through a unification of Love and Awe. In that state, everything is transformed into complete lovingkindness, and the purpose of the devoted ones is to draw this love down into the world at large [and ensure its constant interconnectivity with all sentient beings]. The spiritual meaning of the verse “Who can tell the mighty acts of YHVH”16 can also be read as “Who can take the grain and crush it. . . .”17—namely, the task of the devoted ones is to 13 bBerakhot 2b, Genesis Rabbah 33:4. 14 bShabbat 119b. 15 “And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because on it God ceased from all the work of creation that had been done” (Genesis 2:3). 16 Literally, “Who can tell the mighty acts of YHVH, / proclaim all praises of the One?” (Psalms 106:2). 17 Making flour out of wheat, by husking the grains and pulverizing them. This is another image used for sweetening judgments, as discussed in bBeitza 12b.

300

D. Chesed le-Abraham

sweeten Judgments [by intertwining their rigorous Gevurot (Judgments) with Chesed (Compassion) as taught in the Zohar].18 As mystics know, if Awe is included in Love or vice versa, it leads to rebirth. Love breeds Awe, in the sense that your beloved arouses the need to defend that love. As is evident in the story of R.  Shim‘on bar Yochai and his son, Eli‘ezer, when they first entered back into the world after their retreat, there was no tolerance tempering their judgment.19 However, after they went back into retreat and then entered back into the world a second time, they were on a higher level, and the excess of their Gevurah (Judgement) was contracted and crushed bit by bit from within their Ahavah (Love). [This is what made all the difference and made it possible for this for this spiritual dynamic duo to re-enter the world. On this balance the existence of the world depends.] This further explicates the verse: “Now Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him”20—namely, in the act of co-creating [a spiritual being like] Isaac [who symbolizes the spiritual value of Gevurah (Judgment)], Abraham [who symbolizes the spiritual value of Chesed (Compassion)] transcended time and spiritual qualia.21 For Abraham, [on the level of apperception of deeper spiritual qualia], the circumcision of Isaac was the act of pulverizing Gevurah (Judgment) [by intertwining it with his unmitigated Chesed (Compassion)]. That is why the Scripture states: “YHVH had blessed Abraham in all things”22—the reason is his [heightened spiritual apperception that gave him the] ability to interconnect Compassion that can thus pulverize Judgment.23 We should merit cultivating such a spiritually evolved consciousness, in the future when there will be a day “unto YHVH, not

18 For another form of crushing the grain, see Zohar I:41a. 19 bShabbat 33b. 20 Genesis 21:5. 21 On transcending time and values, cf. Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, nos. 69, 72, 86, 110. 22 “Abraham was now old, advanced in years, and YHVH had blessed Abraham in all things” (Genesis 24:1). 23 For the Kalisker, there is spiritual evolution, which involves divine guidance through the “dusk” state of consciousness. Compare with the notion of the “perfected human being,” known as al-insān al-kāmil in Sufism, see Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Islamic Intellectual Tradition in Persia, ed. M. A. Razavi (Surrey: Curzon Press, 1996), 16, 18, 231, 318, 353.

Chesed le-Abraham

301

day, and not night.”24 Only through the aforementioned “dusk” state of consciousness shall we ascend step by step, until everything joins the stream of complete Compassion, for us and for all [God wrestlers] of Israel. Amen selah.

[2.3]. Parshat Chayyei Sarah (Genesis 23:1–25:18) SUMMARY OF TEACHING: 1. Spiritual practice goes in cycles and thus can be compared to the temporal cycles of existence in the natural world. 2. The attracting light of Love is known as “day,” while the distancing darkness of Awe is known as “night.” 3. Just as day and night define each other and co-exist, so Love and Awe also define each other and must co-exist. 4. The dynamism of the devotional life involves constant movement from the plane of contemplation at transcendent time back to the plane that is limited by time. 5. The dynamic condition of “dusk,” which overcomes the distinction between “day” and “night,” is the place of vision, whereby the devoted ones are able to transform Judgment into Compassion. 6. The devoted person who has achieved this state becomes a partner of the divine mind involved in the creative process. 7. Ascending above consciousness of space and time, and its qualia, one can rectify consciousness instantaneously, in the blink of an eye. 8. When Awe is included in Love or vice versa, it leads to rebirth. 9. Love breeds Awe, just as your beloved arouses the need to defend that love. 10. Complete immersion in Compassion, as with Abraham, creates a capacity to pulverize Judgment.

24 “And there shall be one day which shall be known as the day of YHVH, not day, and not night; but it shall come to pass, that at evening time there shall be light” (Zechariah 14:7).

302

D. Chesed le-Abraham

[2.4]. Parshat Chayyei Sarah (Genesis 23:1–25:18) QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: 1. How does the balance of day and night, Love and Awe flow in the course of your day? In the course of your spiritual practice? How might your spiritual practice be rebalanced by the natural flow of time within the course of the day? 2. Why is the time of dusk—the ultimate in-between moment, when physical visibility is very low—considered to be the time of greatest spiritual visibility? What can you learn about the intensity of the constitution of Love and Awe? How might it become more balanced and more visionary? 3. Consider the constitution of your Love within spiritual practice— when is it completely immersed in Compassion? When do you feel the need to be aroused to defend that Love? Why are the moments of such arousal so important to the vibrancy of your spiritual practice?

Chesed le-Abraham

303

[3.1]. Parshat Mishpatim (Exodus 21:1–24:18) INTRODUCTION: Theophany—the human encounter with the divine is a chief concern of the Book of Exodus. While skilled charismatic leaders most often experience theophany beyond the walls of any institution, there are distinct moments when the spiritual experience absconds back into the walls of religion. How, then, to house that theophany so that the walls do not stifle the journey of the spirit? It is a perennial question that leads to preoccupation with the design, building, and maintenance of the portable Tabernacle of the Pact, known as the MiShKaN. Within this spiritual structure of the MiShKaN, there abides the Indwelling Presence of the Divine, called the SheKhiNah. Building upon this etymological link, the Hasidic approach to cultivating a spiritual sanctuary involves redeeming the inner point of divine vitality within every human being, whose disconnection from the divine source puts them in a state of constant exile. In exile, human consciousness is overpowered by the coarseness of materiality, which garbs the divine vitality, masking and ultimately concealing it. The human being must learn to break through the coarseness of materiality, so as to rediscover and uplift the concealed inner points of divine vitality awaiting liberation and return.

[3.2]. Parshat Mishpatim (Exodus 21:1–24:18) HOMILY: The [Kalisker] opened his teaching with the verse “When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment.”1 He continued by juxtaposing the verse “She is enshrouded with vibrancy and splendor; She looks cheerfully to the future.”2 It is known that the blessed Sages teach, “‘These are the records for construction of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of the Pact,’3—but it was pawned off through our iniquities.”4 Furthermore, the blessed Sages 1 2 3 4

Exodus 21:2. Proverbs 31:25. Exodus 38:21. Midrash Tanchuma, Pequdei 5.

304

D. Chesed le-Abraham

teach that the tabernacle is analogous to the temple.5 As our imperfections multiply, so too does our debt to God increase to such an extent that our pawn is seized and we cannot redeem it from the pawnshop.6 Thus, material existence is exilic. The spiritual analogy is that when a person is self-aware, [it is possible to sense the degree to which] dimensions of the soul coarsen in exile. The human being is a tabernacle in miniature [now lost in exile].7 It is critical to understand that just as there is a material exile, there is, even more so, a spiritual exile. The source of one’s inner vitality [which is housed in the soul’s spiritual sanctuary] has been bound and conquered in exile, shrouded in many garments and concealments.8 This understanding [of the soul’s sanctuary being concealed] hinges on the teaching of the blessed Sages9 regarding the provenance of Esther in the Pentateuch. Esther [who, at the first glance, only appears in the scroll so named] actually [also] appears in the Pentateuch when Scripture teaches, “I will surely conceal myself,” [which reinforces this canonical status and sacrality of the Book of Esther].10 The process by which the Ultimate Source11 [that is the inner point of vitality] emanates forth [from the infinite to the manifest] universe and becomes concealed by the material existence [is itself a metaphysical exile]. The coarsening effect on morality, moreover, is identified with the seven Canaanite nations [that mirror negative moral forces]. “Do not let a soul remain alive”12—whereby the extirpation of the Canaanites is allegorized as a coarsening of morality, in need of refinement. These 5 b‘Eruvin 2b. 6 Our iniquities created so many debts that the pay-off was the loss of the Temple. It is now lost, but can be returned. 7 The spiritual realities of the tabernacle and exile are present within the human being on the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels (Zohar II:162b). 8 The pawnshop of the soul, where it is held onto until redemption arrives. 9 bHulin 139b. 10 “Yet I will keep My countenance hidden on that day, because of all the evil they have done in turning to other gods.” (Deuteronomy 31:18). The difference between the two words, astir (“I will conceal”) and Ester (Esther), is only in the vowels. The combination of consonants that makes Esther’s full name does indeed appear in Deuteronomy. 11 Genesis Rabbah 20:2. 12 “In the towns of the latter peoples, however, which YHVH your God is giving you as a heritage, you shall not let a soul remain alive” (Deuteronomy 20:16).

Chesed le-Abraham

305

negative moral forces always fight against the source of goodness within the human soul. [Why is it that the nations which emerge from the seven negative moral forces equal seventy nations and not seven?] This is the nature of spiritual energy that in exile emerges from within the seven archetypal virtues and diffuses into multiple offshoots [rather than heading in the direction of deeper unity]. On the level of material exile, the same applies to the seventy archetypal nations that derive from the opposing forces. For every foreign matter and oppositional force is expressed through division, but Integration is from the holy force.13 [An expression of division and unification is,] as Scripture teaches, “For YHVH’s portion is His people.”14 While some people cultivate Integral consciousness by joining this “portion,” others do not unite but scatter their consciousness “like chaff ”15 for “many are the torments of the wicked.”16 The divine source apportioned this division as “YHVH your God allotted to other peoples everywhere under heaven.”17 This demonstrates a core devotional principle [of moving away from division towards unification], whereby the soul and its inner vitality are redeemed. This movement facilitates a smelting of the seven archetypal forces that remain in opposition to integration from within. This process of redeeming one’s inner vitality brings the sanctuary forth into a more liberating light. [Until this point, the homily has dwelt on the inner sanctuary of the soul and its spiritual exile. In what follows there is a transition from the “Tabernacle of the Pact,” MiShKaN, to the “pawn lost in debt,” MaShKoN]. The truth is that when the pawnbroker settles up with the debtor, often what is pawned is worth more than what is owed. Due to its high value, the pawnbroker puts the pawn in reserve to safeguard it from being 13 Redemptive forces are expressed through integration (yihuda) and obstructed by forces of division (perudah). Any uni-perspectival lens narrows the possibility of redemption, which is multi-perspectival. 14 “For YHVH’s portion is His people, / Jacob His own allotment” (Deuteronomy 32:9). 15 “Not so the wicked; / rather, they are like chaff that wind blows away” (Psalms 1:4). 16 “Many are the torments of the wicked, / but the one who trusts in YHVH / shall be surrounded with favor” (Psalms 32:10). 17 “And when you look up to the sky and behold the sun and the moon and the stars, the whole heavenly host, you must not be lured into bowing down to them or serving them. These YHVH your God allotted to other peoples everywhere under heaven” (Deuteronomy 4:19).

306

D. Chesed le-Abraham

damaged. Once the debt is paid off, then the debtor can use the pawn. That moment is a redemption of the pawn. [The spiritual analogy of the debtor, the pawn, and the pawnbroker implies that the spiritual pawn is the inner point of vitality “pawned off ” through human neglect, misdeeds, and transgressions. Yet even when it is pawned off, that point still remains within the human, albeit deeply concealed so that it is no longer accessible. The inner point of vitality can only be re-accessed once the debtor awakens to that need and starts moving from constricted to expanded consciousness]. Then [once one cultivates expanded consciousness] it becomes possible for redemption to arise, as the Ba‘al Shem Tov teaches regarding the verse “Come near to me and redeem me’’18—just as there is general redemption for all [God wrestlers] of Israel, so there is also a personal redemption for every individual soul. So even though someone can recognize their own coarseness [through the negative moral forces that mask and conceal the inner point of the soul’s vitality], nevertheless, one should constantly and wholeheartedly desire to remedy the soul [from this coarseness so as to enable the possibility of] its redemption. This redemption takes place by breaking down the body and overcoming all of one’s negative tendencies, until the roots [of these spiritual traits] reach the supernal World of Liberation. [Liberation here is a process that relates to the spheres of divine consciousness and their ascent from the more coarse to the more refined states. The six spheres of divine consciousness, in descending order: Chesed (Compassion) to Gevurah (Rigor), Tif ’eret (Splendor), Netzach (Perseverance), Hod (Humility), and Yesod (Nexus), are considered to be the building blocks of all spiritual qualities, and the source of all these qualities is found above them in a sphere called Binah (Discernment), in the place of supernal unification. Given that these spheres ascend to the place of supernal unification, in the process of ascent they experience freedom from the coarseness of lower consciousness]. This explains the verse, “When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years”19—namely, by serving the attributes of one’s soul [in their spiritual ascent from the six lower spheres of consciousness enslaved to a coarser reality]. In this process, the good attributes will ascend and overcome the negative ones. [As good vanquishes evil, the spheres themselves 18 “Come near to me and redeem me; / free me from my enemies” (Psalms 69:19). 19 “When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment” (Exodus 21:2).

Chesed le-Abraham

307

are smelted from their coarseness and then they are able to ascend] until the seventh year of liberation [which is the sphere of Binah (Discernment)]. The seventh year is the level of liberation [which is the sphere of Binah (Discernment)], the root of all archetypal soul powers. Moreover, as is known esoterically, Dinim (Judgments) [that are the negative moral forces] are only sweetened in their root [as their ultimate source is the sphere of Binah (Discernment), the place of unification, where evil has no reality whatsoever]. This is what Moses did with the Golden Calf—“and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water.”20 [The Golden Calf caused such great damage that it required such great rectification, namely, to smelt through the coarseness of evil and its negative moral forces. Scripture describes this process of] grinding it up to scatter [the remains of the Golden Calf] over the water. By crushing evil so finely, Moses was able to raise it to its root. This smelting concretized energies of divisive consciousness, nullified [the negative moral forces], and sweetened [it in the process]. Regarding return [as a way of restoring the spheres of consciousness to their root in their ultimate source in the sphere of Binah, or the turn of the spheres], it is as discussed many times and as written in Scripture. [Now the homily turns again to the issue of the spiritual sanctuary of the inner point of vitality, which is imprisoned in an exilic state within the coarseness of the material world that conceals it]. “But if you search there for YHVH, you will find the One.”21 Seeking “there,” namely, in that faraway place of divisiveness, perish the thought. Even though [one is in a difficult place of divisive consciousness, it is precisely in that tension that one must seek out the roots of unification concealing divinity] “you will find, if only you seek with all your heart and soul.” 22 When one searches after a lost item to be redeemed from others [so too must one seek and search out one’s own spiritual sanctuary

20 “And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it” (Exodus 32:20). 21 “But if you search there for YHVH, you will find, if only you seek with all your heart and soul” (Deuteronomy 4:29). 22 “But if you search there for YHVH, you will find, if only you seek with all your heart and soul” (Deuteronomy 4:29).

308

D. Chesed le-Abraham

so as to redeem it from its exile in the coarseness of materiality]; this is when divine aid will come to one’s support. This is how to understand the verse “She is enshrouded in vibrancy and splendor”23—namely, that this “vibrancy and splendor” [that symbolize the contours of the spiritual sanctuary] are concealed, pawned, and hidden in numerous shrouds of concealment. The counsel here is to smelt the forces until they are refined, reaching “the final day.” When counting from below to above, the highest world [which is Binah, the sphere above all others,] is “the final day.” Once the roots [of the spiritual qualities in the ultimate sphere of Binah] are reached, everything is sweetened and emerges into the World of Liberation. [For the mystics, the purpose of creation and human existence is to elevate all the coarse values back to their root within the sphere of Binah, the place of their ultimate unification. This is the purpose of Creation and the purpose of the human being]. Now we can better understand this verse, “You, O YHVH my God, have done many things; the wonders You have devised for us.”24 The purpose of the created world and the human being created in the divine image is to connect the lower worlds to their upper counterparts.25 [In this process of ascending the spheres, the ultimate and final sphere is Binah, that place of the ultimate unification of all lower spheres]. On the one hand, the world was created so that the Divine Totality could take pleasure in the devoted ones. On the other hand, the world was created so that the Divine Totality could reveal its beneficence to the world. Otherwise [without a created world and its creatures to oversee and care for] how could such a Divine Totality really be called Merciful and Good? From all perspectives, we learn that the creation of the human being is the axial point. Creation exists to give humans the opportunity to choose good. [The spiritual directive here is the call to elevate everything and reconnect it with its root in the Divine. This 23 “She is enshrouded in strength and splendor; she looks cheerfully to the final day” (Proverbs 31:25). 24 “You, O YHVH my God, have done many things; the wonders You have devised for us” (Psalms 40:6). 25 Cf. “The purpose of the creation of the human is to enable the ascent of the multiverses back to their roots, that is, to return them to the primordial No-Thing,” Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 66.

Chesed le-Abraham

309

constitutes the jouissance that the Divine receives from its devoted ones in their capacity to transform evil into good, returning everything to its divine root. This reveals the goodness and compassion of the Divine Totality, namely, evil is transformed into good and everything turns and returns to the light of the Ultimate Source]. When the first inkling of divine desire [for creation] arose, there were a number of contractions and expansions [as the material world was created]. The Divine was filtered through self-contractions until the creation of First Adam, and then its vitality was further contracted within Adam. These contractions created the potential to elevate everything to its Supernal Desire.26 This elevation fulfils the Supernal Desire. Even though involution is involved in the process of creation, the original thought and purpose of creation is a universal elevation. Although the world was created on the twenty-fifth of Elul [that is, the New Year day, the first of Tishrei, is the sixth day of creation], Rosh ha-Shannah is the day the world was born, because on this day [the human being was created] and human devotional service really begins at that moment. Thus, the human being was formed with the supernal point of Wisdom, [Chokhmah, which is the supernal point of spiritual knowledge, which is at the root of all, containing all being that emanates to become the world,] so as to reconnect everything to the source of desire and its supernal root. This is explained by the verse: “May the glory of YHVH endure forever; / may YHVH rejoice in His works!”27 Simchah (Joy) is aroused through Chokhmah (Wisdom) permeated with Ahavah (Love).28 [Just as when lovers are reunited after a long absence arise and create a joy about them like no other, so too, when all sentient beings that have become distanced from their source are reunited to their roots in the supernal point of rooted Wisdom, there is an arousal of divine joy. What follows further on is an explication of this joy created from wisdom].

26 ‘Etz Chayyim, Sha’ar ha-Kelalim, 1:2. 27 Psalms 104:31. 28 An expression that mirrors the condition of the non-duality of wisdom and compassion.

310

D. Chesed le-Abraham

This is explained by the verse: “My child, when your heart and mind are united, My Heart and Mind will share your joy,”29 and “A wise child brings joy to his father.”30 Through Wisdom and the parental pleasure in loving the child, everything is raised to its root [as is also true of all sentient beings, who are children of the Divine]. Wisdom arouses a tremendous Joy that sweetens all Judgments, to the point where all negativity dissipates.31 This is a key point: “the world was created for the sake of those who struggle with God [Israel],”—namely, through Wisdom and Learning, which is also the beginning. [To belong to Israel is to connect and elevate all sentient beings to their origin in the primal point of Wisdom]. All multiverses of consciousness retain their stability and vitality through the contemplation of the Wisdom embodied by Torah. [So Torah serves as a lens through which one contemplates the created world, so as to reconnect and elevate all sentient beings to their origin in the primal point of Wisdom]. The blessed Sages claim that everything created hung in the balance until Sabbath eve, namely, until Israel received this practice of [contemplating] Torah for the good [and if not, then the world would have returned to chaos].32 Thus the verse [read earlier now brings together the thrust of the homily]: “She is enshrouded in vibrancy and splendor; She looks cheerfully to the future.”33 “Vibrancy”—this can only be Torah, as one enshrouds oneself with [the contemplation of] Torah’s Wisdom; “She looks cheerfully to the future”—[this contemplation of Torah’s Wisdom is what] catalyzes great Joy in the Supernal World. This causes restoration at its source, tuning up the strings of the cosmic lyre.34 29 Literally, “My son, if your mind gets wisdom, / My mind, too, will be gladdened” (Proverbs 23:15). 30 Literally, “A wise son brings joy to his father; / a dull son is his mother’s sorrow” (Proverbs 10:1). 31 Literally, where there is no judgment at all. 32 See bSabbath 88a. Again, the receiving Torah at Sinai is allegorized here: if the individual soul is redeemed, then human beings can be better. Given human potential to gain control and overcome certain natural tendencies, self-cultivation and redemption of one’s soul can lead to a revealing of true human purpose and its involution. 33 Proverbs 31:25. 34 On the notion of returning matter to its root in No-Thing, see Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, nos. 30, 6.

Chesed le-Abraham

311

Thus “the devoted one transforms energy formations emanating from the divine force,”35 in this process of returning to devotion.36 Restoring everything to its root in the state that integrates Awe, Love, and Wisdom [is the purpose of devotion and its arc of return, which enables the restoration of all sentient beings. It] reaches all the way [through all the preceding spiritual qualities right up to] the final day, the Supernal World of Wisdom, the condition of Liberation.37 And wise thoughts are precious enough to merit true Liberation as the advent of messianic consciousness, amen selah.

[3.3]. Parshat Mishpatim (Exodus 21:1–24:18) SUMMARY OF TEACHING: 1. As our imperfections multiply, so too does our debt to God increase and get pawned off. 2. When the pawnbroker settles up with the debtor, what is pawned is often worth more than what is owed. 3. When one is self-aware, one sees that the soul coarsens in exile. 4. The source of one’s inner vitality is exiled and concealed. 5. Even though one recognizes one’s coarseness, there is a constant desire to redeem the soul. 6. Being enshrouded in Wisdom and Learning, one catalyzes great Joy in the Supernal World. 7. Restoring everything to its root is the state that integrates Awe, Love, and Wisdom. 8. This restoration reaches all the way into the Supernal World, known as the redemptive condition of Liberation.

35 Literally, “The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: ‘Ruler over human beings shall be the righteous, even he that rules in the fear of God’” (II Samuel 23:3). 36 bMo‘ed Qatan 16b. 37 Now comes the realization that what is returned is immeasurably valuable—namely, the soul. Liberation of the soul is akin to an act of redemption from the pawnshop.

312

D. Chesed le-Abraham

[3.4]. Parshat Mishpatim (Exodus 21:1–24:18) QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: 1. How do you experience your indebtedness to the source of your holiness? How does your vision of redemption relate to your understanding of indebtedness? Why is it so challenging to acknowledge the sacrifice already made on behalf of your pawned soul awaiting its redemption? 2. How does an awareness of your soul’s coarseness inspire a constant desire to redeem it? 3. How does restoring your truest self to its source in Awe, Love, and Wisdom create a more profound relation in the journey towards your own spiritual liberation?

Chesed le-Abraham

313

[4.1]. Parshat Ki Tissa (Exodus 30:11–34:35) INTRODUCTION: What lies deep in the spiritual structure of the human being, beyond all personal qualities and social programing, beyond all intimations and limitations of the mind, is called emunah. It is often referred to as emunah peshutah, which may be translated as “simple faith” rather than “blind faith.” This evokes the modern traditionalism of a textbook fideist, namely, one who would privilege the role of tradition against rationalism as the medium by means of which divine revelation is communicated. This dependency upon one’s deeply seated convictions seems absurd to outsiders. Having deep seated convictions is not absurd, rather, it can often embrace a seeming paradox through the thinking of the cognitive mind and the being of mystical experience. When we examine the deep convictions of the Kalisker compared with the ideas of Reb Shne’ur Zalman, we appreciate what is at stake in the diverse pathways of hasidic spirituality. The Kalisker does not take issue with reason per se, but with the philosophical hubris that privileges the mind as the catalyst to an encounter of the divine through knowing rather than feeling first. So we can appreciate why this aforementioned translation is insufficient: emunah peshutah also embraces a paradox, beause it is at once expansive, reaching beyond the human soul, and an axiomatic support system, integrated humbly within the human being. To enter into this mental and spiritual state, one must plummet down into the deepest depths of the Sinaitic response, “We will do this sacral deed, and only then we shall understand what it means!” In contrast to R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady’s overly “intellectualist contemplation,” whereby true emunah means deep divine attunement born of cognition and the need to understand as the catalyst to enacting the deed, the Kalisker in this homily makes a unique spiritual focus on supra-rational emunah. Attentiveness to contemplative practice that is grounded in emunah ripens into the contemplative state of the listening heart. The central role of emunah peshutah in the Kalisker’s teachings here precludes a common misunderstanding of this term as limited merely to something like “simple faith.” One cannot realize the depths of mystical apperception through atemporal devequt without the pristine and primordial foundation stone of emunah. This pristine foundation of emunah is precisely what, enables the Kalisker to envision a spiritual evolution being catalyzed from the path of emotional perception to

314

D. Chesed le-Abraham

the path of the heart. Emunah, once established as axiomatic, then allows for the cultivation of the listening heart through contemplation in walking humbly before the immensity of this spiriutal grandeur.

[4.2]. Parshat Ki Tissa (Exodus 30:11–34:35) HOMILY: [The master began his teaching]: “I will make you a great nation.”1 Scripture reads: “I will make you [become more evolved]” rather than saying “I will place [you as you are]”—namely, that “I will make you anew,” that is, recreate you as a new creature. Scripture states, “I will make Myself known in a vision to your prophets . . . but not so with my prophet Moses. . . . With him shall I speak face-to-face, in appearance and not riddles.”2 Understand the difference between “known in a vision” and “in appearance and not riddles,” [which exists] even if the terminology is similar in that both are speculums; one shines, while the other does not shine.3 Behold, the blessed Sages have already taught: “All prophets looked [and had their visions] through a speculum that does not shine, while Moses looked through a speculum that shines.”4 The principle is known: the foundation of all emunah is axiomatic. As the Sages teach:5 Habakkuk derived [the entire Torah from this single verse]: “But the righteous one will live through axiomatic conviction.”6 Still, it is difficult to under1 Genesis 12: 2, Midrash Tanchuma, Lekh Lekha 3. 2 “And God said, ‘Hear these My words: When a prophet of YHVH arises among you, I make Myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my prophet Moses; he is trusted throughout My household. With him shall I speak face-toface, plainly and not in riddles, and he beholds the likeness of YHVH. How then did you not shrink from speaking against My servant Moses!” (Numbers 12:6–8). 3 A distinction between divine and human consciousness is found in the reflective surface of separation and unification. 4 bYebamot 49b. 5 bMakot 24a. 6 Literally, “Lo, his spirit within him is puffed up, not upright, / But the righteous one is rewarded with life / for fidelity.” (Habakkuk 2:4). This verse became a focus of the growing gap between two different modalities of devotion. On the one hand, as evinced here, this verse became the banner of the Kalisker’s distinct spiritual focus on supra-rational emunah. On the other hand, this verse as interpreted by R. Shne’ur

Chesed le-Abraham

315

stand why Scripture does not prescribe this axiomatic conviction, or emunah, in the imperative7 as is the case [with love and reverence]: “You shall love YHVH your God,”8 “And you shall revere your God.”9 However, the foundational axiom of emunah is necessary for building all spiritual infrastructure and qualities. Without this foundational structure, it is not possible to cultivate Love or Awe. Whom would one love? Whom would one revere? Once the foundational axioms are firmly established, a whole system of spiritual virtues can grow from the foundational axioms that define our relationship with the Divine. So Scripture states: “We will do, and then we shall understand”10— where the word order tells it all: first comes the practice, then the understanding follows. In the Zohar this correlation is described as “thighs and ears,”11 where axioms are thighs—the support system of Torah. There is Written Torah and there is Oral Torah. The general axiom [Written Torah] needs a particular implication [Oral Torah] that fleshes it out. The system [of two Torahs] explicates the implications of the axiom. The axiomatic level of Judaism is articulated so that its implications can be set out in devotional practice. As the Zohar teaches: “Discernment is the heart—with it the heart understands” 12—foundational axioms allow the cultivation of a listening heart. When the heart truly listens, this enables greater contemplation.

7 8 9 10 11

12

Zalman of Lyady in chapter 33 of his Tanya championed the “intellectualist contemplation” whereby true emunah means deep divine attunement born of cognition. Naftali Loewenthal shows how this theme continues in discourses of R.  Shne’ur Zalman, connecting knowledge with the accessibility and immanence of the divine, and emunah with the distance and transcendence of the divine. See Loewenthal, Communicating the Infinite, 84–86. A devoted one chooses to live within the foundational axioms of emunah. If there are no prior foundational axioms, then how can other spiritual qualities arise? But if the axiomatic foundation is there, then spiritual cultivation is possible. Deuteronomy 6:5. Leviticus 19:14. Exodus 24:7. See Idra Rabba, Zohar III:138b., which describes the physiognomy of the divine face called the Miniature Countenance [Ze’ir Anpin]. This spiritual function of the ears upon this face are described as follows: “Testing is associated with the ear, and testing is associated with the heart, since both expand from the same place [namely, Binah].” Tiqqunei Zohar, introduction, 17.

316

D. Chesed le-Abraham

This is the kind of discerning heart that leads to Wisdom. Written Torah is the “Wisdom that is found within No-Thing.”13 From the axiom of emunah one can evolve to its most specific derivations of devotional practice. Axioms are the thighs, the foundation, upon which the body of Torah can then stand. This is necessary to establish before true listening is possible. Devotional practice is possible [when] axiomatic foundations [are in place], only then can the heart and the mind truly listen to the practice attentively, which is [the meaning encapsulated in the verse] “We will do, and then we shall understand.”14 Such attentiveness to practice, grounded in emunah, ripens into the contemplative state of the listening heart.15 As Scripture teaches: “And when Israel saw the wondrous power . . . they were supported by YHVH and His servant Moses.”16 Still, it remains difficult to understand why, if the Red Sea revelation was experienced at such an elevated level, when the handmaiden saw even more than the later prophets, why then does Sripture say afterwards “they were supported by YHVH”? Did they only at this point acquire the axiomatic emunah? Indeed, after the revelation [at Sinai the Israelites] truly merited a transformation of spiritual conscious on the level of Moses [seeing through a speculum that shines], akin to “the thighs,” becoming an axiomatic 13 Job 28:12. 14 Exodus 24:7. 15 It is important to appreciate the unique role of emunah in Kalisker’s thought so as to preclude a common misunderstanding of his ideas. To realize mystical apperception through atemporal devequt, the Kalisker assumes a spiritual evolution from the path of emotional perception to the path of the heart, which is realized through emunah. This is not a “simple faith” [emunah peshutah], as some assume, it is rather a spiritual evolution whose foundation is emunah. Only once emunah is established as axiomatic can there be the cultivation of the listening heart, which is enabled through focused concentration. This cultivation leads the mystic from “the end stages to the beginning stages.” See Haran, section IX in “The Doctrine of R.  Abraham Kalisk: The Path to Communion as the Legacy of the B’nei ‘Aliyah,” translated and included in this volume. The crucial point of this teaching is that it exemplifies the Kalisker’s insistence on integrity, that is, an overarching equilibrium between mind, heart, and body. Likewise, the Kalisker insists on the integrity of the Oral and Written Torah. This idea is the key to his use of the Zoharic image of the ears and the thighs. 16 “And when Israel saw the wondrous power which YHVH had wielded against the Egyptians, the people were in awe; they had faith in YHVH and His servant Moses” (Exodus 14:31).

Chesed le-Abraham

317

foundation reaching the Wisdom of Chokhmah, “Wisdom that is found within No-Thing”17—ultimately reaching the Without End [God]. Seeing through a speculum that shines is similar to seeing someone who sees themselves in a mirror—a kind of glass with backing on its side—and only sees oneself [namely, a reflection of one’s own mind]. If there is no backing that makes the glass lens a reflector, then one sees all the way through to the Limitless. Thus, “all prophets looked through an opaque speculum” means that there is a mediating barrier on the other side,18 such that each prophet sees nothing but self-image. This self-image is particular to the root and quality of the prophet. It then serves as the source of the prophecy.19 So Scripture states: “I will make Myself known to this one by a certain appearance”20—it is constructed according to the capacity and the mental state of each particular prophet. “But not so for my prophet Moses . . . in appearance and not riddles”21—through a speculum that shines, seeing impersonally from one side of the glass to the other, reaching the Limitless.22 This is why the axiomatic foundation of emunah is not an imperative command in Torah—it is just not possible [to frame the demand for emunah as a command]. For a command is a particularity, and the axiomatic foundation is the [general] postulate affirming that there is a Commander. If the command was [given as] axiomatically as the postulate, then it would fall into an argument of infinite regress. The command is the particularity of Oral Torah, the validity of which is contingent upon Written Torah, its axiomatic foundation for the cultivation of all spiritual qualities. Even a child in the House of Study already knows God as Creator of the world and takes it to be an absolute truth; yet that foundation [of love in the heart] is weak and vulnerable.23 With such vulnerability, the child’s 17 Job 28:12. 18 That is, social construction of reality. 19 From the social construction of the prophet’s reality. 20 Numbers 12:6–8. 21 Ibid. 22 Transcending his human side as Moses the person, reaching a higher, unconditional level of consciousness. 23 Development of the axiomatic foundation begins in the heart, and this is what separates R. Abraham Kalisker from R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady, given that the latter

318

D. Chesed le-Abraham

willpower would be undermined through distraction or an encounter with something forbidden. When the child grows24 stronger and cultivates an axiomatic foundation of emunah, then all the spiritual virtues adorn and give vibrancy to a practice of Love and Awe. What then becomes self-evident is just how much one’s own Love and Awe depend upon the vibrancy of emunah. The more solidly this foundation is implanted in the heart and mind, the greater the capacity for Love and Awe in the expansiveness of the axiomatic foundation of emunah.25 Now it is possible to understand the opening verse in this [homily]: “I will make you anew,” that is, recreate you as a new creature. So Abraham was described as “having an axiomatic foundation of emunah in YHVH.”26 This grounding allows one to transcend all spiritual qualities to the mental state of No-thing—which is the state of a truly new creature. All of one’s limbs should feel this interconnectivity, as governed by the heart. From the heart, which is the center of the body, all that compassionate energy flows to the rest of the limbs, just as food is digested and its source of energy is refined. Just as the blood of the heart distributes vitality to the rest of the body, so too can one be revitalized through this axiomatic foundation of the heart. This is what is meant by “But the righteous one will live through axiomatic conviction”27—that the whole body listens to the heart. The heart works with Understanding and “Wisdom that is found within No-Thing.” This connection between Wisdom and Understanding28 links the heart of the devoted one with axiomatic foundations and enlivens such a person through them. And Wisdom is found [to be cultivated]

24 25 26 27 28

would see the axiomatic foundation beginning in the intellect, namely arousing the heart by thinking about certain themes. Here the Kalisker is arousing the heart through feeling rather than the intellect. See Haran, “R. Abraham Kalisk and R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady,” 399–428. Beyond the level of phenomenal experience. Such expansiveness applies to both the intellect (mind) and the heart (love). Literally, “And because he put his trust in YHVH, so YHVH reckoned his merit” (Genesis 15:6). Habakkuk 2:4. This is related to “the speculum that shines” of Moses-consciousness. The thrust here is that this axiomatic foundation needs to evolve beyond the phenomenal level to reach a more fully embodied spiritual consciousness.

Chesed le-Abraham

319

in the [mental state] of No-thing until it reaches the Limitless, and this suffices for those with true esoteric understanding.

[4.3]. Parshat Ki Tissa (Exodus 30:11–34:35) SUMMARY OF TEACHING: 1. Renewal leads to the recreation of self as a new creature. 2. If the foundation of all emunah is axiomatic, then there should be a prescription for emunah in the imperative. 3. The foundational axiom of emunah is necessary for building all spiritual infrastructure and qualities. 4. Without this foundational structure, it is not possible to cultivate Love or Awe. 5. From the axiom of emunah one can evolve derivations of devotional practice. 6. Devotional practice is only possible when axiomatic foundations exist. 7. Attentiveness to devotional practice that is grounded in emunah ripens into the contemplative state of the listening heart. 8. The axiomatic foundation of emunah is not an imperative command in Torah, because a command is a particularity, and the axiomatic foundation is the general postulate that there is a Commander. 9. If the command was given axiomatically as the postulate, it would then fall into an argument of infinite regress. 10. The more solidly this foundation is implanted in the heart and the mind, the greater the capacity for Love and Awe in the expansiveness of the axiomatic foundation of emunah. 11. The interconnection between Wisdom and Understanding links and enlivens the heart of the devoted one to such axiomatic foundations.

320

D. Chesed le-Abraham

[4.4]. Parshat Ki Tissa (Exodus 30:11–34:35) QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: 1. Is your emunah axiomatic in a way that is supportive of the wellbeing of your spiritual practice? To what degree is your capacity to cultivate Love and Awe affected by your axiomatic emunah? 2. Is it true for you that devotional practice is only possible with axiomatic foundations like emunah? Does acknowledging the existence of a Commander with particular commands help or hinder your devotional practice? If so, why? 3. How might you make space for restoration of this axiomatic emunah within your heart and mind? Are you aware of other modes of expanding your capacity for Love and Awe?

Chesed le-Abraham

321

[5.1]. Parshat Pinechas (Numbers 25:10–30:1) INTRODUCTION: Approaching the sacred always evokes anxiety. This anxiety was especially heightened in Ancient Israel. So we find that in the priestly strata of the Hebrew Bible, there is also great anxiety whenever anyone spiritually unprepared approaches the sacred realm. The Israelites’ weeping at the door of the Tent of Meeting is a reaction to the transgressive scene of a Simeonite, Zimri, the son of Salu, copulating with a Midianite, Cozbi, the daughter of Zur, in public view before the holy tent. So when God rewards Pinechas with a Covenant of Peace, also translated as the pact of friendship, upon the public execution of Zimri and Cozbi, we are left to confront one of the most troubling, if not mystifying, passages in Scripture. Given the outward appearance of this couple’s transgressive behavior, their public execution, performed by Pinechas, seems to align with a priestly calculus. However, both the scribal and the later rabbinic traditions feel the need to mine this biblical scene for its ethical implications. According to these interpreters, Pinechas is rewarded with a broken Covenant of Peace. As the mystics mine this passage for esoteric meaning, we will come to learn how all worldly pleasure—even the seemingly transgressive copulation of Zimri and Cozbi—derives from a higher Source of Pleasure. The libidinal impulse of this couple symbolizes the yearning for constant pleasure; however, the mystical tradition reveals that this is not the true pleasure. When read as a spiritual avatar, Pinechas symbolizes the cultivation of unselfish consciousness, namely, the dissolution of self into No-thing. Such a dissolution of self leaves an empty space, which can be seen as the capacity for fullness that will restore the deeper spiritual practice of the forgotten law. Once it is restored, a renewed spiritual vitality of all multiverses can revitalize the life-force to its level of non-dual consciousness.

[5.2]. Parshat Pinechas (Numbers 25:10–30:1) HOMILY: “Behold, I have given him my Covenant of Peace.”1 The master opens his teaching: “Behold, I have given him” means that [this covenant] still 1 While the above translation is hyperliteral, the normal rendition tends to be: “Say, therefore, ‘I grant him My pact of friendship’” (Numbers 25:12).

322

D. Chesed le-Abraham

stands,2 as affirmed by the verse, “My covenant was with him, for Life and Peace.”3 Scripture states, “For YHVH your God is a consuming fire, an impassioned God.”4 As the Zohar teaches, it is a fire that consumes fire—“that destroys all fire of the world.”5 The contextual meaning is that the truly devoted one should be so consumed with the fire of divine passion during the devotional practice that this fire would consume all fires of worldly pleasure. All worldly pleasure derives from the Source of Pleasure. So all the worldly pleasures are like a drop in the ocean compared to the real pleasure in serving the real life and root of all pleasures. Constant pleasure, however, is not true pleasure. Take the example of a father that loves his child. When the child is always around, there is not the same awareness of pleasure. But there is a deeper awareness upon seeing the child again after having been separated. So too does one lose sight of the awesome nature of the relationship with the king when one is always in the presence of royalty. One unused to the presence of royalty would likely be awestruck by the sight of the king. This is why the liturgy emphasizes “the one who is constantly renewing creation.”6 The blessed Sages teach that as words of Torah age in the heart, they need to then be renewed daily. They should be as if “seen anew daily” [as if] “received on this very day”.7 So too is this the case regarding ethical refinement. In hearing inspirational instructions, the response can become habitual and less effective, without any capacity to arouse the heart towards the divine. However, if the instructions of ethical refinement appear as new teachings, then surely it could lead to a more ardent arousal of the heart. This applies to any kind [of apperception achieved through] listening, even regarding learning and devotion—once it becomes habitual [and is no longer seen as new], it is less effective. If something becomes habitual so that the Numbers Rabbah 21:3. Malachi 2:5. Deuteronomy 4:24. Zohar I:51a. Here, Kalisker refers to the liturgical section called Yotzer in the morning prayers. See below, parshat Va’Etchanan on the need for a feeling of divine intimacy of non-contextual contraction leading to a deep panentheism that makes possible corporeal devotion. 7 Sifre Deuteronomy 6:6. 2 3 4 5 6

Chesed le-Abraham

323

heart no longer feels it as new, then [habit] diminishes one’s capacity for cultivating Love and Awe. [So to avoid getting trapped in a habitual spiritual practice,] one needs to redouble efforts in divine service by renewing one’s own Conviction, Love, and Awe so that “They are amply renewed every morning.”8 The renewal needs to be ample enough to reach a feeling beyond distinctions, the very source of consciousness and spiritual qualities. That feeling is the level of fire consuming fire—just as wax melts before fire, so too will the ethical dross be smelted. For the human being exists to bring joy and pleasure to the Creator. To explicate further, consider what the blessed Sages have taught: “Look into these three facets of existence and you shall not falter: know, from whence you have come, where you are going, and before whom you shall give testimony and accounting in the future.”9 Scripture states: “YHVH founded the earth by Wisdom; God established the heavens by Understanding.”10 But if the heavens are by default more elevated than the earth, then the “heavens” should have been established by “Wisdom” and the “earth” should have been established by “Understanding”. So behold, the truth is known: the purpose of creation was to extend the supernal realm to the terrestrial realm of the human being. Notwithstanding the split nature of human consciousness—an admixture of good and evil attributes— creation is meant to serve by connecting the source embodied in the earth with its supernal root [above]. Behold: the human is meant to act and see through whatever one may be working through and thinking in this world. There is an existential need to seek, extend, and preserve an enlivening state of consciousness, “For this is the whole [spiritual] purpose of the human.”11 “So through transparency God has enabled the human to revere the One.”12 8 “They are renewed every morning—/ Ample is your grace!” (Lamentations 3:23). 9 mAvot 3:1. 10 Proverbs 3:19. 11 “The sum of the matter, when all is said and done: Revere god and observe the commandments! For this applies to all humankind” (Ecclessiates 12:13). 12 “I realized, too, that whatever God has brought to pass will recur evermore: / Nothing can be added to it / and nothing taken from it—/ And God has brought to pass that there are those who revere the One” (Ecclessiastes 3:14).

324

D. Chesed le-Abraham

For example: if one experiences a certain sense of Awe that is fearful, then use it as a pretext for returning to its root feeling of contrition. It is the same with every human emotion that arises in relation to a given experience: [one should] harken that spiritual quality back to its root. Even so, one might think that a transformation of evil into good has taken place. Given how one can be subject to ephemeral experiences of attraction and repulsion, the real experience of true Awe is wanting. True devotion requires cultivating the level of Chokhmah (Wisdom), “For Wisdom is found within No-Thing,”13 which is the incipient point, already present [before the emergence of] consciousness.14 So to understand with discernment is to see the interconnectedness, as exemplified by the relationship of “the two inseparable lovers.”15 As Sefer Yetzirah teaches: “Discern with Wisdom and be Wise with Discernment.”16 Once there, in the realm that [transcends the ephemeral distinctions and reaches their unified root], there is an opportunity to interconnect action, speech, and thought, so then non-dual consciousness will reveal everything as a wondrous emanation of Torah. There will be novelty to this revelation, so that it will immediately inspire Awe. Now the verse states, “YHVH founded the earth by Wisdom.”17 A ground of existence is only possible through Wisdom. This manifestation [of divine Wisdom embodied in the terrestrial world] is already present to consciousness at birth and is later confirmed through [empirical] observation. “God established the heavens by Understanding.”18 When one seeks to cultivate consciousness, its constituent spiritual qualities like Love and Awe are akin to fire and water. Water—like Awe—flows downward expanding from above; whereas fire—like Love—withdraws in its ascent upwards. Discerning the interconnectedness of all things is only possible here through understanding that the One has ordered it to be so. In recalling the One as the force elevating all experience to its root that 13 Job 28:12. 14 Non-judgmental objective awareness, which has cognition of everything. 15 The key is to cultivate the duality of scope at any given time simultaneously, see Zohar III:120a. 16 Sefer Yetzirah 1:4. 17 Proverbs 3:19. 18 Ibid.

Chesed le-Abraham

325

enlivens all sentient beings, an atemporal and non-dual consciousness is [cultivated]. “By [intuitive] knowing of the One, the depths burst open.”19 In all of one’s actions [one should intend to] reach the level of ayin (No-Thing) that comes through Chokhmah (Wisdom). This Chokhmah then allows one to contemplate upon Binah (Discernment). Only then “shall the land be filled with devotion to YHVH”20—the divinity will overflow the land of the abysses, and “By [intuitive] knowing of the One, the depths burst open”—knowing the One. Messianic consciousness will be possible for the sage truly committed to the partnership of divine and human consciousness. “Draw near unto my soul, and redeem it”21—namely, drawing nearer a personal redemption. Such a redemption of the soul will allow one to transcend all spiritual traits, until all that remains is divine consciousness. This is what the blessed Sages were really saying: “Know from whence you have come”—this is the incipient moment You have created through Chokhmah; “and before Whom”—in accordance with the Zohar, Binah is called “Whom,” a word that helps to discern the interconnectedness of all things; and “Before Whom”—this is Chokhmah, which is No-thing, wherein the only thing one can really know is not-knowing anything,22 except for the clarity of the One that enlivens all sentient beings; “and before whom you shall give testimony and accounting in the future”23—that is, in the sweetening of Judgments, where “all evildoers are scattered.”24 So Pinechas merited a relationship with the Divine Totality: when the law disappeared, he was remembered by enacting its return into

19 Literally, “By His knowledge, the depth burst apart, / And the skies distilled dew” (Proverbs 3:20). 20 “In all of My sacred mount / Nothing evil or vile shall be done; / For the land shall be filled with devotion to YHVH / As water covers the sea” (Isaiah 11:9). 21 While a more hyperliteral translation is used above, this verse is more commonly translated as follows: “Come near to me and redeem me; / free me from my enemies” (Psalms 69:19). 22 Experiencing without classifying. 23 mAvot 3:1. 24 “Surely, Your enemies, O YHVH, / surely, Your enemies perish; / all evildoers are scattered” (Psalms 92:10).

326

D. Chesed le-Abraham

Wisdom and No-thingness.25 In such consciousness, there is no impediment to this work [of cosmic restoration], so that much radical amazement emerges from this encounter to enliven the universes and nourish consciousness. This is the fuller meaning of the opening verse: “Behold I have given to you”26—namely, the vitality of all universes, which renews itself and restores life to its level of non-dual consciousness.27 [When this restoration happens] then “shall the whole world be filled with devotional knowing of YHVH” 28 forever, if it be the divine will.

[5.3]. Parshat Pinechas (Numbers 25:10–30:1) SUMMARY OF TEACHING: 1. A truly devoted person should be so consumed with the fire of divine passion amidst the devotional practice that it then consumes all fires of worldly desire. 2. All worldly pleasure derives from the Source of Pleasure. 3. Constant pleasure, however, is not true pleasure. 4. If something becomes habitual so that the heart no longer feels it as new, this habit diminishes one’s capacity for cultivating Love and Awe. 5. To avoid getting trapped in a habitual spiritual practice, redouble your efforts in divine service, renew Conviction, Love, and Awe. 6. Redemption of the soul allows one to transcend all spiritual traits, so all that remains is divine consciousness. 7. Cultivating consciousness of No-thing enables the forgotten law to return into Wisdom and No-thingness. 8. There is no impediment to nourishing consciousness of No-thing. 9. The vitality of all multiverses renews itself and restores life to its level of non-dual consciousness. 25 bSanhedrin 82a: if there is a case of copulating with an Aramean, as with Cosbi and Zimri, then the zealots may spear him. 26 Numbers 25:12. 27 Implying a certain kind of immortality, in the sense of such consciousness being eternal. 28 See note 20.

Chesed le-Abraham

327

[5.4]. Parshat Pinechas (Numbers 25:10–30:1) QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: 1. What happens to your worldly desire as you immerse yourself deeper in your devotional passion? How do you address those times when you are challenged by the intensity of your devotional passion? 2. Why is it so important to link your appetite for novelty to your capacity for cultivating Love and Awe? How does your habitual spiritual practice help or hinder cultivation of Love and Awe? 3. What does it feel like to have the vitality of all multiverses restore your life to deeper levels of consciousness?

328

D. Chesed le-Abraham

[6.1]. Parshat VaʼEtchanan (Deuteronomy 3:23–7:11) INTRODUCTION: True immersion into mystical union is the dissolution of self in the infinite sea of divine consciousness known as devequt. This is a process of interconnecting one’s own spiritual traits with their source and root in all multiverses of consciousness. Once achieved, this immersion of self within the infinite then spills over into the finite world, where it affects nomian practices such as prayer. Sriptural scenes, such as Moses pleading to the blessed Holy One, or the even earlier epiphany of Abraham’s recognition of the Creator, point to the possibility of prayer as an invitation to reach the level of ayin (No-Thing), which is known as the sphere of Chokhmah. In this state of consciousness, when the human connects the self to the blessed Holy One, an illumination occurs for human consciousness, a sensation likened to suckling from Chokhmah. What might emerge in transcending all material matters, if one’s awareness is attuned to the condition of Chokhmah? This homily focuses on how one’s identity in love as part of a seemingly separate self is subsumed in the oceanic feeling of devequt within the totality of consciousness.

[6.2]. Parshat VaʼEtchanan (Deuteronomy 3:23–7:11) HOMILY: The master opened his discourse according to the exegesis,1 which shows that there are many expressions for prayer—why then in this verse does Scripture turn to the language of “and he pleaded”?2 Why not use such language with Moses, who also seemingly pleaded to the blessed Holy One, when he said “O let me behold Your Glory,”3 namely, to what degree does your divine energy manage the world? The blessed Holy One responded: “I will make all My goodness pass before you . . . and the grace that I grant. . . .”4 1 Tanchuma VaʼEtchanan 3. 2 Deuteronomy 3:23. 3 Exodus 33:18. 4 “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim before you the name YHVH, and the grace that I grant and the compassion that I show” (Exodus 33:18).

Chesed le-Abraham

329

Scripture states, “If only you were a brother who nursed at my mother’s breast!”5 For “if love is conditional, then when the condition disappears, so does that love,”6 while fraternal love is “unconditional”—based on a recognition of a common innate source—thus there is never a possibility of separation. “YHVH founded the earth by Wisdom”7—Chokhmah is the basis of existence, represented by the letter Yod, [which looks] like a hidden point.8 Even the tiniest dot visible to the eye is called Yod.9 Out of that point any letter can be drawn. As long as an infant is being nursed, the child is not eating on its own and thus has no independent cognition. The child then remains unable to separate [from the mother] even for a moment. [In contrast to this lack of independent cognition, consider how] our blessed Sages teach that Abraham fulfilled the entire Torah.10 To understand the matter, consider [the expression] “when they were created” [Be-HibAR’aM]11: [all the consonants of this expression are present] in [the name of] Abraham [spelled in Hebrew as ABRaH’aM, which contains a hidden message inscribed within it that will now be elucidated]. The world was created for Abraham,12 [namely, for the moment of his independent] recognition of the Creator. For such recognition, Abraham’s consciousness had to have reached the level of ayin (No-Thing), which is Chokhmah, “hidden from the eyes of all living.” [The continuation of this verse states that Chokhmah is also “concealed from the fowl of heaven.” This means that included among “all living” are] the celestial creatures that are alive and real, thus aptly named “the fowl of heaven,” which are also called angels.13 5 “If only you were a brother who nursed at my mother’s breast! I would kiss you in the streets and no one would scorn me” (Song of Songs 8:1). 6 mAvot 5:16. 7 Proverbs 3:19. 8 Tiqqunei Zohar, tiqqun no. 18, 32b. 9 The whole alphabet depends on that initial point of contact where the ink first meets the parchment. 10 bYoma 28b. 11 Genesis 5:2. 12 Genesis Rabbah 12:9. 13 “It is hidden from the eyes of all living, / Concealed from the fowl of heaven” (Job 28:21).

330

D. Chesed le-Abraham

And Scripture states: “In the beginning”14—for the purpose of YisRa’El [literally “the one who sees God”].15 Concealment and contraction happen in the infinite primordial moment when the Divine extends from within the universes,16 until the creation of the human being– the one who embodies divine desire and will choose life. The blessed Holy One sustains all creation. When the human connects itself to the Holy One, an illumination occurs within human consciousness. In this state of consciousness, one is suckling from Chokhmah [in the condition of]: “Concealment is divine glory.”17 The goodness [bestowed by Chokhmah] is hidden within each enlivening impulse, and it is present within all of consciousness.18 Without the presence of that creative element, one could not exist at all.19 In all material matters, like eating and drinking, if one’s awareness is attuned to the condition of Chokhmah, the separate self is subsumed in the totality of consciousness. In the default mode of consciousness, one is isolated as a separate self, drawn to experiences or objects of apparent pleasure. But when that consciousness is directed to Chokhmah, then the background comes forward and the foreground fades into relief. Redeeming oneself from the habit of foregrounding fleeting pleasures is only possible once non-dual consciousness is cultivated to transcend and encompass all spiritual traits. This is not conditional love. Rather, it is simply a matter of merging one’s entire consciousness in love and cleaving to the nursing breasts of Chokhmah—reconnecting to that level of love within one’s consciousness. As long as one survives these challenges, [this process] reinforces the merging into non-dual consciousness. True devequt is an interconnecting

14 Genesis 1:1. 15 Leviticus Rabbah 36:4. 16 See above, parshiyot Lekh Lekha and Pinechas on the need for a feeling of divine intimacy of non-contextual contraction leading to a deep panentheism that makes possible corporeal devotion. On the usage of the terminology “unfurling” [hishtalshelut] and “multiverses” [‘olamot], cf. Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 72. 17 “It is the Glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of a king to plumb a matter” (Proverbs 25:2). 18 At the causal level, the world ceases to exist, even though true self still exists. 19 Cf. “Through divine pathos does this world exist, for there is no king without a people,” Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 118.

Chesed le-Abraham

331

of one’s own spiritual traits with their source and root in all universes of consciousness. In this sense Abraham, of blessed memory, was able to fulfill all sacred mandates of Torah, because he cleaved to Chokhmah—the source of all vitality in the universes. Thus, he was illumined by Chokhmah, which gave him the ability to see and know the entirety of Torah in its six hundred and thirteen devotional deeds. These deeds are ultimately the “good counsel”20 on how to merge with the blessed Holy One. So the Ba‘al Shem Tov interprets the scriptural passage “If only you were a brother who nursed at my mother’s breast!”21 as referring to true immersion in the Source without any distraction. “In the streets”— this refers to one who might veer outside the framework of spiritual values. Regardless of positioning, the blessed Holy One continues to guide and illuminate such a person. “I would kiss you”—kissing is interpreted as a modality of deep connection, which will come through the lens of Chokhmah to merge at its source. That is why Moses says: “O let me behold Your Glory”22—namely, in what way does your spiritual energy guide the universes of consciousness? The blessed Holy One answered, “I will make all My goodness pass before you”—which is the spiritual value of Chokhmah; “and the grace that I grant”23—whenever one veers from a spiritual quality [and falls], the light remains to guide the way [back up] from [the place of falling]. Just as in the teaching: “Open for Me like the eye of a needle, and I will open for you like the expanse of the heavens”24—the light of the universe from the treasure trove of Life is the very luminescence of life itself.

20 Zohar II:96b. 21 Song of Songs 8:1. 22 Exodus 33:18. 23 Ibid. 24 Song of Songs Rabbah 5:3.

332

D. Chesed le-Abraham

[6.3]. Parshat Va’Etchanan (Deuteronomy 3:23–7:11) SUMMARY OF TEACHING: 1. There are multiple expressions for prayer. 2. Divine energy manages the world, as Moses discovers when pleading to the Holy One. 3. Chokhmah, compared to a hidden point, is the basis of existence. 4. The world was created for Abraham in his independent recognition of the Creator. 5. For such recognition, Abraham’s consciousness reached the level of ayin (No-Thing), which is Chokhmah. 6. When the human connects the self to the Holy One, an illumination occurs for human consciousness. 7. In this state of consciousness, one is suckling from Chokhmah. 8. In all material matters, if one’s awareness is attuned to the condition of Chokhmah, the separate self is subsumed in the totality of consciousness. 9. True love is merging of one’s entire consciousness in love and cleaving to the nursing condition of Chokhmah. 10. True devequt is an interconnection of one’s own spiritual traits with their root in the multiverses of consciousness.

[6.4]. Parshat Va’Etchanan (Deuteronomy 3:23–7:11) QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: 1. How does prayer manifest itself for you, aside from its expression as a needy pleading? What happens to your prayer once it emerges from the place of Chokhmah, the hidden point of your existence? 2. Why is the consciousness that has reached the level of ayin (No-Thing), which is Chokhmah, considered to be nourishing? What is it about self-abnegation that enables more expansive prayer? 3. Why is the nursing condition of Chokhmah so important in reconnecting to the high level of love within your consciousness? What happens to your spiritual practice when it is nourished through such love?

Chesed le-Abraham

333

[7.1]. Haftarat Shoftim (Isaiah 51:12–52:12) INTRODUCTION: To witness an event formulated in human words, even if the event itself is the reaching out of the divine, constitutes the realm of prophecy. For neo-hasidic thinker, Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907–1972), the prophets provide a primary model of authentic spirituality, where revelation is not a mystical act of seeking the divine but an awareness of being sought by divine pathos. The situation in which God reaches towards the human condition is often expressed as outrage in response to human sin, combined with mercy in response to human suffering. Hebrew prophecy is distinct from the focus of Greek and Roman mystery cults on initiation, possession, and ecstasy. Rather, the prophets channel their messages to be delivered after an argument with God against a given divine decree. What distinguishes the prophetic perspective is a sensitivity to “the human situation as a divine emergency.” Prophecy is an act of inspiration involving both the gift of revelation and the one endowed with the subtle sensitivity to receive it. The prophet Isaiah seeks intimacy with the Divine through immanence. One of the three largest prophetic books in the Hebrew Bible, the book of Isaiah describes the prophetic mission of Isaiah ben Amoz during the reign of Kings Uzziah and Ahaz in the mid-eighth century BCE. In its powerful poetics of prophecy, one encounters a vast arc of spiritual moments, oracles of doom as well as themes of consolation. The section of Isaiah’s prophecies that the Kalisker addresses in this homily focuses on the imminent redemption originally addressed to the Babylonian exiles. Isaiah highlights the omnipotence of God as the Creator of the entire universe and the trusted Fulfiller of prophecies. This specific section of Isaiah is directed to Zion, as yet unrestored. The prophetic texture at play before our homilist is a double movement from the exile of Babylon to the sacred center of Zion, from imminent fulfillment of promises to their ultimate realization. In Isaiah’s vision, the Divine Totality is manifest as Creator, Redeemer, and Fulfiller of prophecies. Specifically in Haftarat Shoftim, there are three facets of encounter with the Divine: first, there is the intimacy of divine comfort as consoler to the bereaved Zion; second, there is the arousal of Zion from its stupor and its consequent renewal in the ascent; third, upon the return of the divine Beloved, Zion is awakened in Her from exile. This prophetic scenario is the palette from which the homilist now asks his disciples in Tiberias as a new incarnation of Zion: How

334

D. Chesed le-Abraham

can one realize balance and equanimity within the spiritual life between the competing aspects of Compassion and Judgment? Is there a primordial model of balance that can be recovered and contemplated from the pristine moment of creating the world? While the literature of wisdom envisions a world created through the lovingkindness of Compassion (as in Psalms 89:3), by contrast, the prophetic tradition envisions a world that appeared in a process of creating darkness and even making space for evil through the admixtures of Judgment (as in Isaiah 45:7). The mystical approach to these seeming contradictions in Scripture is to embrace the dialectical paradox, so that one is invited to contemplate how Compassion can be conjoined with Judgment, making earthly existence possible. This dialectic uncovered by the mystical experience helps cultivate an awareness of the fact that in conjoining Compassion with Judgment, Compassion takes precedence over the rigor of contraction. The expression of this dialectic in spiritual practice ccreates some real concerns as one begins to realize that unless Love is contained by measured forms of action and speech, one would be annihilated by Love in a single moment, returning to the overwhelming Love that created the world through the lovingkindness of Compassion. The tension between these two traditions offered by wisdom literature and the prophetic roots of mystical contemplation comes to the fore in the Kalisker’s reflection on the prophet Isaiah. This homily shows that a sustainable restraint is intrinsic to Awe, so that Judgment constructively preceded the manifestation of Compassion, before it trickled down to the restraint of Awe within the free-flowing ecstasy of Love and allowed Splendor to manifest. Isaiah’s clarion call still beckons to the devoted ones, calling them to imitate such Divine restraint.

[7.2]. Haftarat Shoftim (Isaiah 51:12–52:12) HOMILY: “For you will not depart in haste, / Nor will you leave in flight; For YHVH is marching before you, / The God of Israel is your rear guard.”1. The master opened his discourse: behold, it is known from the teaching of our blessed Sages: “On the day that YHVH Elohim made the

1 Isaiah 52:12.

Chesed le-Abraham

335

earth and the heavens”2—in the beginning it arose in the divine mind to create the world through the attribute of Din (Judgment), but seeing that the world could not withstand its rigor, God began to bring Rachamim (Compassion) to the fore, conjoining it with Judgment.3 For in truth, when it arose in the Ultimate Will to create the world and all its creations, it was motivated by the good nature yearning to share the flow of its abundance with all creatures. But if the emanation of the Ultimate Will had been in its fullness, none of its recipients would have been able to bear the magnitude of the flow, which would have overpowered their capacity. So, within the Ultimate Will of the Source of Compassion, there was a contraction of the flow within the Chain of Being, and the existents received the flow that they could withstand. This is likened to nursing a child. [The Source of Compassion is required to give the child nourishment according to its capacity to receive the flow.] Behold, as our blessed Sages teach: “In the beginning it arose in the divine mind”—does this not suggest then that there was a change in the divine mind, even though Scripture teaches: “For I am YHVH—I have not changed”?4 So, in truth, this is the way it is to be understood: the initial idea that arose was to create world with Din (Judgment), which is tzimtzum (contraction). For the divine mind knew that a world based on Compassion and Mercy would not suffice to nourish creation fully, so some of it had to be withheld. Thus, Compassion was conjoined with Judgment5 and took precedence over contraction.6 So one needs to align oneself in accordance with the divine mind in all aspects of the devotional life—learning, prayer, and contemplation— to allow contraction to take precedence. Devotional life is unsustainable, whether in speech or in action, without integrating the contraction. For 2 Genesis 2:4. 3 Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 41:2. 4 “For I am YHVH—I have not changed; and you are the children of Jacob—you have not ceased to be” (Malakhi 3:6). This suggests that there is presence everywhere, with an unchanging essence. 5 Judgment is already Compassion, and the will to create according to Judgment is already the attribute of Compassion. Thus, there was no change of divine mind. 6 On “non-contextual contraction” [tzimzum she-lo’ ke-fshuto], cf. Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 1, 91, 93, 104, and no. 2, 113, 115, 118, 124:1, 127, 137, 162, 164, 165, 168, 173, 177, 179, 184, 202, 225, 248, 255, as well as supplement, 123, etc.

336

D. Chesed le-Abraham

devotion based only on Ahavah (Love) without Yir’ah (Awe) runs the risk of becoming completely divorced from life. However, if Love is contracted within limits, then such Love [can overcome its nullification and] become manifest [within life]. As our blessed Sages teach: “If there is Awe in the face of transgression that precedes one’s Wisdom—such Wisdom is realized.”7 Unless Love is contained by measured forms of action and speech, one would simply be annihilated by Love in a single moment. Moreover, Love overlooks everything and eliminates standards, to the point where it can cross boundaries, losing all limits and restraints. This is likened to one who truly loves the king and becomes so familiar [with the royal presence], that one may act inappropriately, losing any sense of Awe. But if there is a sense of Awe along with the restraint [it brings], then, even with this ecstasy of Love that runs roughshod over all boundaries, one will refrain from transgression. So this verse is explained by Or ha-Chayyim:8 “Thus shall you say to the House of Jacob and declare to the Children of Israel.”9 Namely, to one who is in the condition of “Jacob”—devoted to divine service [from the restraining quality of Awe]; “You say”—speak in a delicate tone [informed by Love and affection]; to one who is in the spiritual state of “Israel”—whose devotion comes from the place of Love; “Declare”—in a harsher manner, like tendons. To conjoin the restraint of Awe with the free flow of Love, so that through the union these two qualities existence will be sustainable, as truly embodied in Torah, prayer, devotion and in all of one’s spiritual practice. Along this path [of Love] one can then interpret the opening verse: “For you will not depart in haste.”10 When water flows seamlessly from above to below, as is the case when something descends from above, this

7 mAvot 3:9. 8 See R. Chayyim ben Moshe ibn Attar (1696–1743), Or ha-Chayyim on Exodus 19:3. 9 “And Moses went up to God. YHVH called to him from the mountain saying, ‘Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and declare to the Children of Israel: ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to me’” (Exodus 19:3). 10 “For you will not depart in haste, / Nor will you leave in flight; For YHVH is marching before you, / The God of Israel is your rear guard” (Isaiah 52:12).

Chesed le-Abraham

337

is called Linear Light.11 The flow from below to above, however, is called Returning Light (Or Chozer),12 as is known esoterically. This [Returning Light] cannot be apperceived in haste. This is why the prophet says: “For you will not depart in haste”—[the flow of Love] will not be grounded unless it is sustained by the restraint intrinsic to Awe. Thus Judgment precedes the manifestation of Compassion. The compassionate impulses that the Creator has for all sentient beings are reproduced in a sustainable spiritual devotion, and the devoted one [should exercise restraint so as] not to be annihilated by [the overwhelming flow of] Love, as the verse states, “My soul was annihilated by Your word.”13 “For you will not depart in haste, / Nor will you leave in flight; For YHVH is marching before you, / The God of Israel is your rear guard.”14 “For YHVH [Compassion] is marching before you”15—namely, one goes in the direction of Compassion, which is the middle path. “Your rear guard”16—namely, the contraction that appears through the blending of Compassion and Judgment from within the universes of consciousness. Such withdrawal gives cause and possibility for embodiment and the nourishment of existence through the spiritual practice of Torah and devotion. This is “the God [Judgment] of Israel [Splendor]”17—which is the contraction already discussed. Through this intertwining of spiritual qualities—the restraint of Awe [God] within the free-flowing ecstasy of Love [YHVH]—the condition of Splendor [Israel] is attained. So may we merit the advent of messianic consciousness speedily in our days, amen. 11 “Linear light” (or yashar) is the attribute of Compassion (Chesed), whereby the upper realm flows forth towards the receptive, lower sphere. Chesed is the love that is directed by haste and running so that it overflows all limits and restraints, leading to the situation whereby one is dissolved from reality by the overwhelming merger of love. 12 “Returning light” (or chozer) is the attribute of restraint (Din), whereby the lower realm flows forth as a more limited force. Din restrains and limits the otherwise overwhelming predilection of light to merge through the force of Chesed. 13 Literally, “I opened the door for my beloved, / But my beloved had turned and gone. / I was faint because of what he said. / I sought, but found him not; I called, but he did not answer” (Song of Songs 5:6). 14 Isaiah 52:12. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid.

338

D. Chesed le-Abraham

[7.3]. Haftarat Shoftim (Isaiah 51:12–52:12) SUMMARY OF TEACHING: 1. The world was created through the attribute of Judgment, but the world could not withstand its rigor, so Compassion was conjoined with Judgment. 2. In conjoining Compassion with Judgment, Compassion takes precedence over the rigor of contraction. 3. Devotion based only on Love without Awe runs the risk of becoming completely lost from existence. 4. Love contracted within limits manifests as it overcomes its nullification. 5. Unless Love is contained by measured forms of action and speech, one would be annihilated by Love in a single moment. 6. Being grounded in a sustainable restraint, intrinsic to Awe, is why Judgment precedes the manifestation of Compassion. 7. Intertwining the restraint of Awe within the free-flowing ecstasy of Love enables the manifestation of Splendor.

[7.4]. Haftarat Shoftim (Isaiah 51: 12-52:12) QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: 1. How does your Love-based devotion in life enable you to gain insight? Could that insight have been deepened within your spiritual practice by a sustainable restraint of Awe? 2. How have measured forms of action and speech enabled a more sustainable Love? 3. Finding that right balance between the restraint of Awe within the freeflowing ecstasy of Love is a challenge—when you bring this challenge into your relationships, how does it allow Splendor to manifest? When you bring this challenge to your spiritual practice, how does it allow Splendor to manifest?

Chesed le-Abraham

339

[8.1]. Haftarat Ki Teitzei (Isaiah 54:1–10) INTRODUCTION: Through the symbolic dynamics of love and rejection, anger and assuagement, the prophet Isaiah attempts to navigate the nature of commitment in a covenantal relation between the divine lover and his beloved, Daughter of Zion. The structure of this prophesy is divided as follows: (1) proclamation of restoration (Isaiah 54:1–8); (2) oath (Isaiah 54:9–10). A proclamation of restoration opens with an exhortation for Zion to rejoice as her territory expands and the shame of her widowhood is replaced with “everlasting Compassion” [Chesed ‘olam]. An oath is then offered to affirm that the divine anger has been assuaged. God is presented by Isaiah as the loyal bridegroom who is able to overcome betrayal. From this prophetic setting, the homilist turns to the disciple searching in Tiberias to eventually reach the counterintuitive realization that, notwithstanding their mastery of spiritual consciousness, there always remains a point beyond grasp. What the homilist suggests is a cognitive paradox, namely, that the purpose of knowing is not-knowing, a reiteration of the pioneering teaching developed by the founder of Hasidism, the Ba‘al Shem Tov. As the homilist delves deeper into this apparent paradox, the limitations of the cognitive mind are cracked, and the discursive mind opens in reconnecting to the knowing heart on a more intuitive level of an abiding, foundational knowing that precedes not-knowing. As spiritual cognition evolves, the divine mind augments human perceptions, producing bliss. In this state of bliss, the initial insight, however deep, now pales by comparison. By remastering the powerful prophetic vision of Isaiah, the homily attempts to explain how the purpose of expanding spiritual cognition can put knowledge into greater perspective, thus opening the mind and heart to the unlimited space of not-knowing. This enables an interconnection of cognitive and affective knowledge merging with the One, which demands a clear focus. Before reaching the fourth sphere of Chesed (Lovingkindness), as expressed by the prophet, the homilist takes a step back, to the third sphere of Binah (Discernment), proffering a nuanced contemplative journey through the spheres of divine consciousness that enables a development from acognitive luminal apperception to not-knowing in the heart. This journey constitutes the gateway of Binah (Discernment), here explored in depth, in contrast to the earlier homily on parshat Va‘Etchanan, which explored illumination

340

D. Chesed le-Abraham

that occurs for human consciousness as a sensation and compared it to suckling from Chokhmah (Wisdom).

[8.2]. Haftarat Ki Teitzei (Isaiah 54:1–10) HOMILY: “For the mountains may move / And the hills be shaken, / But my loyalty shall never move from you, / Nor my covenant of friendship be shaken /—said YHVH who takes you back in love.”1 The master opens his teaching where all devotional literature begins: “The purpose of knowing is not-knowing.”2 Behold, Torah states that there is a foundational knowing that precedes not-knowing3 so that an ignoramus cannot have achieved the knowledge of not-knowing. One must make a tremendous effort at knowing first. As articulated in the teaching: “Know what is above you”4—consider a lofty matter not easily perceived. A person engaged in an ongoing effort to innovate their devotion with divine help moves from concealment to disclosure, where the most subtle type of comprehension develops and is revealed in the highest realm of the mind. It involves a great clarity and an extraordinary bliss. This experience cannot be tasted and then expressed in words by way of cognition. Consider, for example, when someone is learning and develops an appetite for exoteric studies (for example Talmud, Tosafot, and legal codes). Often, the power of thinking over an issue in depth reveals an 1 Isaiah 54:10. 2 The wise one, who is referred to but not named, may be the Baʼal Shem Tov, see Keter Shem Tov, vol. 3, 7–8. 3 There is a way of uniting knowing and not-knowing by way of an inner compass to find the divine. When one encounters the divine, it remains unknowable, but that inner compass is the perquisite of knowing so as to locate the divine. Theology is not knowing per se; rather theology is merely a conceptualization of the divinity and reality. Theology needs to be in support of direct knowledge and always provisional. At best, theology is heuristic; the mistake is when excessively left-brain thinking and dualism substitute the imaginary world of concepts with the real world of spiritual experience. 4 mAvot 2:1.

Chesed le-Abraham

341

insight that is accompanied by an immediate feeling of pleasure. Even if the matter at hand is lucid in the mind, it may not be fully possible to articulate the insight through words. In that moment of not-yet-expressed knowing, one feels just how much this apperception extends into supernal bliss. Then comes a point where one desires to become enshrouded by a few words that capture the experience, from concealment to revealment.5 As spiritual cognition evolves, the divine mind augments human perceptions, producing bliss. And the initial insight now pales by comparison. The purpose of expanding [spiritual cognition] is to put knowing into perspective. So it is along the devotional path, insofar as one focuses on the interconnection of cognitive and affective knowledge. This demands a robust desire and a clear focus to merge these [different modalities of knowledge] with the blessed Holy One. Through the process of nullifying the ego, a wondrous refinement takes place, so that a profound jouissance emerges. Yet [the blessed Holy One] is beyond cognitive grasp6—such acognitive lucidity requires gradual, moment-to-moment involution.7 With devotional constancy, the nuances accrue so that one experiences more jouissance in conjunction with the divine mind daily.8

5 Cf. Maggid Devarav le-Ya‘aqov, no. 15, 173 where the Maggid’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 20:1 refocuses the meaning of the verse “when you take [the field of your enemy]” to refer to the precarious transition between being in the state of devequt with the divine to becoming intertwined with the libidinal impulse—that is what constitutes the true war described at this place in Scripture. The transition from expanded to constricted consciousness and the overall ineffability of this experience may also have influenced Kalisker’s critique of R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady’s revealing of the esoteric experiences of devequt in the Tanya. 6 Tiqqunei Zohar, tiqqun no. 5, 17a. 7 Literally, “ascending the divine mountain.” 8 When viewed from the daily perspective, evidently, there exist regularly cultivated insights, which accrue and build on the insights of the preceding day. It is through lucid, luminal apperception that one experiences more jouissance in conjunction with the divine mind, rather than through cognitive apperception. The aspect of knowing through categories is what limits the flow of luminal apperception, and it is precisely in conjoining with the divine mind through luminal apperception that one experiences more jouissance.

342

D. Chesed le-Abraham

“Know therefore this day and restore it to your heart”9—namely, when you reach that level of lucid knowing which is called “day,10 and restore it to your heart”—so within it11 your heart comes to know the grandeur of the blessed Holy One,12 ultimately realizing that such apperception is beyond categories.13 In the process of spiritual involution, there is a gradual development, in the process of which the acognitive luminal apperception of the previous day is formulated into a category suitable for discernment today. Thanks to this process, the following day becomes a time for discerning and cultivating an even greater acognitive luminal apperception, for now this boundlessness can rest upon the boundedness of the previously established categories. These [components of development, from acognitive luminal apperception to unknowing in the heart] constitute the forty-nine gateways of Binah (Discernment). This is sufficient for mystics.14 [And so along this process of spiritual involution, keep in mind that] when one falls short or forgets, one should return constantly and seek out lost apperceptions. Moses, of blessed memory, was the paragon of all prophets in terms of his elevated spiritual consciousness and so merited all [forty-nine gateways]. Notwithstanding such mastery of spiritual consciousness as symbolized by Moses, if there still remains a fiftieth gateway, then there remains a point beyond grasp. As Scripture teaches, “That You have made [Moses] little less than divine.”15

9 Deuteronomy 4:39. 10 This refers to concealed luminal apperception within every human being 11 Namely, as described in the opening of the teaching, “within” the knowing that is not-knowing. 12 Although in medieval Jewish philosophy “heart” [lev] is considered the seat of the mind and thus interchangeable, it is more in keeping with the flow of this teaching to shift from apperception through cognitive categories to the knowing that is notknowing, found deeper within the heart. 13 Such acognitive apperception is only possible once the depths of the heart are truly opened. 14 Rather than being threatened by misperceptions about self and other in the process of spiritual formation, mystics are those who intimately understand and are comfortable with the reality that true spiritual knowledge is manifest as not-knowing. 15 “That You have made him little less than divine, / and adorned him with glory and majesty” (Psalms 8:6). Compare with bRosh ha-Shannah 21:2.

Chesed le-Abraham

343

[8.3]. Haftarat Ki Teitzei (Isaiah 54:1–10) SUMMARY OF TEACHING: 1. The purpose of knowing is not-knowing. 2. There is a foundational knowing that precedes not-knowing. 3. As spiritual cognition evolves, the divine mind augments human perceptions, producing bliss. 4. The initial insight then pales by comparison. 5. The purpose of expanding spiritual cognition is to put knowing into perspective. 6. The interconnection of cognitive and affective knowledge demands a clear focus to merge these different modalities of knowledge. 7. The development from acognitive luminal apperception to notknowing in the heart opens gateways of Discernment [Binah]. 8. No matter how much the mastery of one’s spiritual consciousness, there always remains a point beyond grasp.

[8.4]. Haftarat Ki Teitzei (Isaiah 54:1–10) QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: 1. What challenges do you face in reaching not-knowing? 2. Have you ever experienced the perspective that comes with expanding spiritual cognition? How did it impact your spiritual practice and journey? 3. Why does the development from acognitive luminal apperception to not-knowing lead to a more discerning heart rather than mind? 4. How could awareness of that point always beyond your grasp inspire a deeper connection to your spiritual journey? To the spiritual journey of others?

344

D. Chesed le-Abraham

[9.1]. Haftarat Ki Tavo (Isaiah 60:1–22) INTRODUCTION: In this section of his prophecy, Isaiah is inspired by nothing less than waiting for the divine redemptive presence. There is a wondrous restoration of illumination awaiting Zion, filled with worldly splendor. The section is divided into three parts: (1) a new divine light to be soon hovering over Jerusalem and shining over all who follow the splendorous path to Zion (Isaiah 60:1– 3); (2) peace and victory will replace violence and ruin through a the universal ingathering to Zion (Isaiah 60:4–18); (3) the transcendent glory of Zion will arise and shine in everlasting illumination (Isaiah 60:19–22). Awareness of our limitations as embodied creatures amidst all the competing desires that make up life’s actions can be challenging. So any mystical practice invites a contemplation of these very limitations to envision the greatness of the Divine Totality. Upon such contemplation, a gap may appear between between the Knower and Knowledge, between the Creator and Its creation, calling the mystic committed to monism to deepen their reflection upon the numerous divine self-contractions necessary to create a world of multiplicity. The divine light hovering over Jerusalem, which shines over all who follow the splendrous path to Zion, is inverted here with numerous divine self-contractions. These contractions are necessary to enable a chain of being, enabling Ultimate Reality to glimmer throughout lived reality. Coming to the lower end of this chain, the soul is adjusted to tolerate corporeal existence. Revitalitizing the entire body with the primal energy requires an integration of the embodied self within the Origin Point, the sphere of Chokhmah. Different gradations of Love are experienced in this process of return. One type of Love is Worldly Love [Ahavat Olam], which may be instinctive in origin, but shows notable growth. The second type of Love is Great Love [Ahavah Rabbah] that is aroused by great overwhelming jouissance. The magnitude of Love encountered through the integration into the supernal Origin Point emerges in an encounter with the imperfect self. For the mystic, then, compassionate life means to be filled by such Great Love so as to feel an overflow of the magnitude of Love within the effervescent experience of embodied jouissance.

Chesed le-Abraham

345

[9.2]. Haftarat Ki Tavo (Isaiah 60:1–22) HOMILY: “You have affirmed today that YHVH is your God. . . . And YHVH has affirmed this day that, as promised, you will be a treasured people .  .  . high above all.”1 The master begins his teaching: behold, it is a great principle in spiritual practice amidst all actions to be aware of the limitations of material existence. In careful contemplation of the implications of one’s limitations, it is possible to envision the greatness of the Source of All that makes that which is not manifest become manifest. What is the purpose of this creation? What will it ultimately become? As our blessed Sages teach, “Keep in mind three things to be assured”2—this is the contextual meaning. [A good counterweight to egocentricity one should always keep in mind is knowing the insignificance of existence itself in regards to the cosmos.] But there is a deeper lesson here about the purpose of creation. In gazing upon the Force of Creation that created the individual, [notice the gap separating Creator from creation and] consider how many self-contractions the Holy One underwent in order to create all the sentient beings in this world, imbuing them with a higher spiritual energy. All these contractions of the Ultimate Reality are required for this chain of being to manifest, until [going down this chain] the soul is adjusted to tolerate corporeal existence, to be naught that emerges from aught. Similarly, divesting oneself of materiality and all related thoughts is crucial to the refinement of self, study, and service. This enables one to connect to the Original Point of Chokhmah—the beginning of 1 “You have affirmed today that YHVH is your God, that you will walk in ways of the One, that you will observe laws, commandments and rules of the One and that you will obey the One. And YHVH as affirmed this day that you are, as promised, YHVH affirms that you will be a treasured people who shall serve and observe all his commandments, and the One will set you, in fame and renown and glory, high above all nations that the One made;/and that you shall be, as promised by the One, a holy people unto YHVH your God” (Deuteronomy 26:17–19). 2 mAvot 3:1.

346

D. Chesed le-Abraham

everything. This seed, which enlivens all life, is called the “Original Point of Chokhmah”3 as “Chokhmah preserves the life of the one who possesses it.”4 From that Original Point of Chokhmah there is a supernal connection, whereby vitality is drawn into the entire body. Contemplate the Original Point5—the Ultimate Ally—which is the guiding source of the miniature Yod within [the formation of] the holy letters.6 The expansion of the Yod demonstrates the overall potentiality of expansion through this [narrow] channel, embodied by interconnecting [the realms] above and below. This is how one comes to the sovereign gateway—integrating the embodied self into a connection with the supernal point, the Source of Life. This is what is meant in the Rosh ha-Shannah liturgy preceding Malkhuyot: “Recite verses of sovereignty in My Presence as a way of setting Me as sovereign upon you”—to crown the Original Point as your Ultimate Ally. All is possible through this Original Point: “Chokhmah is found in No-Thing”7—which really means that Chokhmah is manifest through contractions of No-Thing, by divesting all vestments of manifestation. In light of this palpable connection to the Original Point and its merging, there is, so to speak, an arousal of divine jouissance, which draws a supernal clarity from the essence of life. Then [through the joiussance of this merging] all judgments become sweetened. 8 For example—consider the relationship of a father and a son. Whereas the adult is complete, the child is still growing. When the father comes to see the son, it causes the child to experience jouissance, while the father experiences jouissance of his own accord. Even so, it is important to recall that the child’s mind is not developed enough to foster the same intensity of love as that of an adult. It is not a complete love; rather, 3 Proverbs 4:7. 4 “For to be in the shelter of wisdom is to be also in the shelter of money, and the advantage of intelligence is that wisdom preserves the life of the one who possesses it” (Ecclesiastes 7:12). 5 The expression “Original Point” suggests a process of returning to one’s Ultimate Ally. 6 Tiqqunei Zohar, tiqqun no. 18, 32. 7 Literally, “But where can wisdom be found; / where is the source of understanding?” (Job 28:12). 8 Anything that causes a separation is a source of limitation akin to judgment.

Chesed le-Abraham

347

it is called Ahavat ‘Olam (Worldly Love), namely, an instinctive love. While [this love] may be instinctive in origin, nevertheless, there is notable growth—the father [grows] on account of his son, and the son [also grows] on account of his father.9 The love burning inside the father’s heart upon seeing his son arouses a love in his son by virtue of this great jouissance, which is called Ahavah Rabbah (Great Love).10 As the child returns from a great distance and the father is in the throes of real jouissance, this magnitude of paternal love causes the father’s consciousness to be expanded. With such expanded consciousness, no request would be denied the child. But if that same request was made at another time, there would be deliberation in considering the request and its feasibility.11 However, during this time of real jouissance stemming from great paternal love, the quality of Loving Compassion—which is open to benefiting all—is aroused. The affect here is the Overflow of Compassion, once one is attuned to the Higher Love at the right time. That is why jouissance is referred to as “impregnation,” a new kind of energy, the Overflow of Compassion through cultivated attunement. In any case, the underlying message of the parable is evident.12 So towards this end the mystic focuses on merging through the act of returning the self to its origin, or, as the parable renders it, the child to the father, which is that supernal Origin Point.13 This source is rendered into a state of jouissance by the affective adhesion of the unperfected self (child) finding its way back to its origin (father). The energy charge that results from the child returning to the father is what 9 This parable is meant to illustrate 10 Contrast these modalities of “universal love” and “great love” with R. Shnuer Zalman of Liady’s conceptions of “concealed love” and “cultivated love,” see Tanya I:44. 11 Assuming that the father’s consciousness would be constricted. 12 The aspirant yearning to enter into the throes of real jouissance with the Holy One needs to recall that there is also a divine pathos whereby the divine yearns to enter into the throes of real jouissance with the aspirant, who is the child of God. What is being illustrated through the parable here is that the interfacing with the divine source field is productive. This generative kind of new energy or overflow of compassion can be applied through attunement of the aspirant and cultivation of deep states of devequt. 13 Even the return is not with a completed self. Rather, it is with a limitation. Even so, the return is to the completed supernal Origin Point.

348

D. Chesed le-Abraham

arouses Love within jouissance or Great Love.”14 Upon encountering the imperfect self, the supernal Origin Point gives off this energy due to the magnitude of the Love. In this sense [regarding the magnitude of love of the supernal Origin Point], one can then say that: “[the Father’s] clothing [is] as white as snow, his hair like pure lamb’s wool.”15 Namely, in concentrating one’s attention further away from sensual objects and focusing on the “hair” of [the Father, also known as] the Holy One of Ancient Days, despite the personal limitations of spiritual intelligence, a fullness of spiritual capacities can be cultivated through the wholeness of the Origin Point of the father who is “like pure wool.” Then the mystic can embody and align the self by drawing down from this source a garment “as white as snow” to become more lucid and spiritually aligned. One way or the other, all the energies of the Other Side—all that opposes the blessed Holy One—are nullified.16 Overcoming of this illusion of dualism is akin to the parable above concerning the father’s love for the child. In returning from a great distance, the child catalyzes and arouses Love within jouissance or Great Love from within the father. This Overflow of Compassion sweetens everything in its fullness and rectifies restraints through such beneficence. Yet, if at such a time of Great Love someone were to speak ill of this child, undoubtedly, the father would lash out with restraining judgment against such a person.17 This is clear from human nature.18 In the same way, regarding the love of our Father, our King—the origin of all that exists—He would react similarly to a human father 14 Compare with R. Shne’ur Zalman of Liady’s dialectic of “concealed love,” which is more intrinsic to the mystic but often concealed through unawareness, whereas “cultivated love” is what greets the mystic if the journey is realized and a habitual practice makes the revealing of the concealed the fruits of cultivation, see Tanya I:44. 15 Daniel 7:9. 16 All the forces that support duality are dissolved into non-dual consciousness. These forces are part of the warp and woof of the divine field of reality, but from the highest vantage point, it is all one. Thus, the power to oppose, which was present in dualism, is disabled. 17 Here the Kalisker shifts from a “universal love” back into the conflictual reality, in which he is, more than likely, embedded amidst his ongoing experiences in Tiberias, Israel. 18 This shift is a descent from the theosophical to the psychological.

Chesed le-Abraham

349

[defending] his children, the People of Israel, whom God called, sanctified, [made] “Children of the Source,” and [held an] “Extra reserve of love for them.”19 From this “Great Love” for Israel there unfurls a love that is different in infinite ways, more suitable to this world.20 Ever more so and more so, but this is not the place to expand, for in any case it is understood. Now it is possible to really understand the opening verse, “You have affirmed today that the Lord is your God”21—this is an exclusive unity, according to R.  Shlomo Yitzchaki’s explanation following the Targum, and as the Sages, of blessed memory, have said, “You have made Me into the sole object of love in the world.”22 By making Me the sole object of your love, [in return] “YHVH has affirmed this day that, as promised, you will be a treasured people”— even though you are not perfect. You will be treasured because of the limitless Great Love, whose fire will continue burning, as the commentators noted on the verse, “You shall be my treasure.”23 So all the attributes of Compassion will be filled by such “Great Love,” causing them to quell as they overflow from the Love within jouissance. By itself, all accusing and prosecuting forces are dispersed and disabled like chaff that is blown away by the wind—so that you are only swept higher [in this Love]. This finally explains: “will set you . . . high above all”—as we are hoping every day for the advent of messianic consciousness to redeem us speedily, if it be the Will of the One.

19 mAvot 3:14. 20 The existence of the world is contingent upon the Holy One’s love of Israel. 21 Deuteronomy 26:17. 22 bBerakhot 6:1, used to mirror an expression of allegiance in betrothal or courtly love. 23 For example, Nachmanides, commentary on Exodus 19:5; Orakh Chayyim on Exodus 19:5.

350

D. Chesed le-Abraham

[9.3]. Haftarat Ki Tavo (Isaiah 60:1–22) SUMMARY OF TEACHING: 1. Be aware of the limitations of the incarnate world amidst all spiritual practice. 2. Contemplating limitations leads to envisioning the greatness of the Source of All. 3. Upon such contemplation, notice the gap separating Creator from creation, and considers how many self-contractions the Holy One underwent in order to create this order of existence. 4. Contractions of the Ultimate Reality are required for this chain of being to manifest, until the soul is adjusted to tolerate corporeal existence. 5. Divest yourself of materiality and all thoughts thereof for the refinement of self, study, and service. 6. Then you will be able to connect to the Original Point of Chokhmah— the beginning of everything. 7. From that Original Point of Chokhmah there is a supernal connection, whereby vitality is drawn into the entire body. 8. Integrate the embodied self into a connection with the supernal point, the Source of Life, the sovereign gateway. 9. Supernal clarity of the palpable essence of life is drawn from this connection to the Original Point. 10. Worldly Love, even if instinctive in origin, nevertheless, shows notable growth. 11. Great Love is aroused by great jouissance. 12. Due to the magnitude of the love, the supernal Origin Point gives off its energy upon encountering the imperfect self. 13. So all attributes of Compassion will be filled by such Great Love, causing them to overflow from the Love within jouissance.

Chesed le-Abraham

351

[9.4]. Haftarat Ki Tavo (Isaiah 60:1–22) QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: 1. How does contemplating the limitations of your embodied self with every action affect your spiritual practice? 2. How are your study, your service, and your sense of self affected when you are divested of materiality and its coarsening thoughts? Are there moments when materiality can also be a pathway to deeper devotion, service, study, and selfhood? 3. What kind of balance do you need to strike between Worldly Love and Great Love? How might confronting the contractions of your imperfect self open you to deeper reception of Great Love?

352

D. Chesed le-Abraham

[10.1]. Shabbat Shuvah/Rosh ha-Shannah INTRODUCTION: Incipience—the process of being brought into existence—is the most minute aspect of movement, the initial tendency to change that is more minute than the transformation itself. Incipience—that first stirring of thought leading to the breakthrough of beginnings, neither in the world of aught nor in the world of naught. Incipience stands as a nexus point in time, in contrast to eternal temporality, in a sense, erupting from the eternal into the possibility of moment-to-moment existence and experience. This possibility emerges within existents through the incipient Rosh (“beginning,” “head”) of the year. This is the incipient point and root from which all reality of the coming year comes into being in terms of its integral structure. True understanding of the meaning of New Year, called Rosh ha-Shannah, requires an exploration of the depths of the beginning, or the Rosh, of the year.

[10.2]. Shabbat Shuvah/Rosh ha-Shannah HOMILY: Someone posed a question [to the Kalisker regarding the verse]: “Then He became King in Jeshurun, / When the heads of the people were assembled, / The tribes of Israel together.”1 The [Kalisker] then began his teaching to explicate what is meant by [the liturgical phraseology of]: “Today is the birth of the world” [with a focus on the meaning of birth] as discussed in the Peri ‘Etz Chayyim at length.2 There are generally three analogies used in early Jewish mysticism to explain and distinguish between the outer, three-dimensional world as perceived through the senses versus the inner, multi-dimensional worlds apperceived through spiritual consciousness.3 The first analogy is calling someone by their name. When someone is known by a certain name, so long as that person stands before you, that person is recognizable by the form of their image, their limbs, 1 Deuteronomy 33:5. 2 Peri ‘Etz Chayyim, Sha‘ar ha-Shofar, ch. 5. 3 Ya‘aqov ibn Gabai, Tola‘at Ya‘aqov, Tefillat Musaf.

Chesed le-Abraham

353

and their movements. But when that person is no longer in your presence, and a messenger is sent to call “so-and-so,” then the name already includes what that person looks like, their limbs, their movements. A name encompasses and implies all dimensions that constitute a persona. [If you wanted to inform the messenger of this person’s true form so as to find them, it would probably require a lot of details. By contrast, just mentioning the person by name enables an immediate recognition of all the characteristics of the one who is being sought out]. In any case, there is a gap that separates the human being’s physical body from the spiritual body—[the latter being] encapsulated within their name. Thus, if one wanted to draw someone’s form to send it to the messenger seeking that person out, one would be required [to encapsulate] many facets [of the entire physical persona, including the structure of their body and the form of their limbs. To the exclusion of all these aforementioned requirements what emerges here is that] when such a person’s name is called out—then immediately that person would be recognized in all their facets. [For the name constitutes a spiritual reality, within which all the particularities are integrated. Thus far, the first analogy concludes in teaching about a person’s name. What follows is a second analogy, extending from the name to its atoms, namely, the letters themselves, both insofar as letters are written as well as spoken]. [The second analogy emerges as] one contemplates the forms of the letters in the five categories of their mystical articulation [in Sefer Yetzirah].4 Each letter [that emerges within speech] is only distinguished when it is pronounced, but unless the form of the letter is articulated and pronounced, its root in the mouth remains unknowable in form and image. Unless the letter is envisioned well within the mind, the forms themselves may not be fully understood. Only when the letter is connected to its articulation in speech can one see the way it actually sounds, corresponding to its root form in the mind. This is just like the baby who babbles without a deeper understanding of the root of the words being spoken and heard, [so one remains like a babbling baby] speaking sounds without knowing what the real purpose is behind what one says, except that this is the way words are empowered at their root, and so it is that 4 This categorization is based on articulation, as the consonants are divided into guttural, palatal, lingual, dental, and labial, see Sefer Yetzira II:6.

354

D. Chesed le-Abraham

one hears and speaks. [The second analogy concludes here with regard to the letters, whose physical reality is their image in written form and their manifestation through oral articulation is not necessarily recognized in its spiritual roots, even if the mind is able to envision the letters’ forms prior to articulation. Even so, it is still not possible to apperceive the spiritual roots of the letters and really understand why a letter is so formed. The distinction between the physical reality of the letters and the spiritual reality of the root has already been explained, insofar as the spiritual root includes within it the physical reality of the letters, even if they are not yet envisioned. This leads to the third analogy]. [The third] analogy applies when someone causes pain or pleasure to a child, so the child is immediately aroused and reports it to the father. The child tells the father who then has to decide whether what has happened is indeed good or bad for the child. Whatever the child experiences immediately arouses a response that is reported to the father [who still serves as the child’s root, which explains how the experience passes from the child immediately to the father. This is the immediate sense of rootedness]. And so [just as the child is aroused and immediately reports the experience to the father, whether the experience causes pain or pleasure to the child; so, once this becomes known to the father,] then the father is aroused to either do good [and show appreciation and gratitude] or retaliate [and do harm] to the one who elicited this reaction from his child. [From the father’s perspective, he remains the root of the child, thus the reality of this root causes an arousal within him any time something is done to the child]. [These three analogies teach that for every physical manifestation there is a spiritual root corresponding to an integral spiritual reality. This leads back to the opening phrase regarding the deeper meaning of the inception, namely, the birth of existence into the world]. This is the meaning of “today [is Rosh ha-Shannah which] is the birthday of the world”—likened to pregnancy, which [enables a zygote to bear]5 an entirely new creation that comes into being with 248 limbs and 365 sinews in all its power and movements. Encompassed and integrated within this [zygote] are imprinted all the maternal and paternal capacities. [The zygote is the spiritual root of the human being, thus, the 5

The rabbinic expression tipa is usually translated as a “single drop of semen,” but given the trajectory of the homily that envisions both the paternal and maternal capacities within the same drop, it is more accurately translated henceforth as “zygote.”

Chesed le-Abraham

355

reality of the human’s body, limbs, and all its intricacies becomes integrated into this singular form, which is its root. So Rosh ha-Shannah is the spiritual root of the entire temporal span of the year, all of its intricate realities are integrated into this root. Thus, the day that is called Rosh ha-Shannah is called the birthing day of the world. This is referring to the zygote, which integrates within it all the intricacies of the world for that given year.] The implication of the expression [referring to Rosh ha-Shannah as] “today is the day that your deeds begin again”6 refers to the return of everything to its root [that, as discussed above, is the point of origin in which everything is integrated]. All capacities of the year are encapsulated in a single point [Rosh ha-Shannah], where they are imprinted in general and in particular, with all the power that sustains the world’s existence. [Now the homily explains why Rosh ha-Shannah is the Day of Writing, as its liturgical referent in Tane Tokef states “on Rosh ha-Shannah it is written.”] This, then, is the meaning behind “writing”—an inscription that is made [on Rosh ha-Shannah] of all the possibilities and their details for the entire year within the origin point. [This origin point is the root from which all the reality of the year is drawn forth, so the intricacies and possibilities of the year are all collectively inscribed and written on this day. The homily now returns to the opening verse and explicates it according to the mapping of divine consciousness made manifest through the seven lower spheres. These spheres are in descending order: Chesed (Compassion), Gevurah (Rigor), Tif ’eret (Splendor), Netzach (Perseverance), Hod (Humility), and Yesod (Nexus), culminating in Malkhut (Grounding). The pathways to manifesting the unmanifest through these seven spheres are further consolidated into the spiritual persona of the masculine blessed Holy One and the feminine Indwelling Presence. The first five spheres govern the universe and make up the structure of the blessed Holy One, whereas the culminating sphere of Malkhut is the root essence of all sentient beings in reality, which gives vitality to all the creatures and brings into actuality the potential of the higher spheres, housing them all in existence. This housing embedded in terrestrial existence is known as Shekhinah, the feminine Indwelling Presence of Being. Yesod serves as the bridge between the upper spheres and the lowest sphere, binding the higher spheres to their housing in existence].

6 Pesikta de-Rav Kahana 23:1.

356

D. Chesed le-Abraham

Thus [the meaning of the verse can now be understood in this new light, summarized as follows:] “Then He became King in Jeshurun, / When the heads of the people were assembled, / The tribes of Israel together.” “Jeshurun”—this is Israel [namely, the governing power of the blessed Holy One over the universe, as described above, through the five spheres: Chesed (Compassion), Gevurah (Rigor), Tif ’eret (Splendor), Netzach (Perseverance), and Hod (Humility)]. “King”—this is Malkhut (Grounding), [which is] the lower point that contains and integrates everything, [since Malkhut serves as the Grounding for all upper spheres that are integrated within Her, and the unmanifest is rendered as manifest in the lower realms] and is in control of everything [amidst sentient beings, their existence, and reality which emerge from Malkhut, the Ground of all Being].7 This becomes possible “When the heads of the people were assembled”—when the terrestrial and celestial realms of consciousness are integrated into their origin point. [The word “heads” here refers to the origin point which is the sphere of Yesod (Nexus) that binds all the upper spheres and their capacities to Malkhut (Grounding). Malkhut, the Ground of Being, is herself a head, which serves as the root of all beings, terrestrial existents, and their realities]. For this reason it is called: “Head of the Year”—it is the incipient point [and the root of all sentient beings and their manifestations], containing and integrating all capacities and possibilities of the entire year. “People”—by the virtue of this [assembly there is an] integration, containing all the capacities and possibilities [of the beings becoming this year] in the terrestrial realm called “people.”8 “The tribes of Israel together”—this refers to the integration bringing “together” a union of all earthly creatures called “tribes of Israel” so that all [sentient beings] continue to come into existence. [With gratitude for] sustaining us in [these] lives of goodness and peace, so may redemption come speedily in our days, if it be the Will of the One. 7 As an agent of divine evolution, the mystic then must draw down purposeful vitality and divine aspirations of what is able to be manifest this year. Drawing down the effulgence of compassion for the New Year is manifest in a singular incipient point embodied in the letters of the word TiShReI, the name of the first month of the Jewish year, which can also form the word ReI’ShiT, “beginning.” See Peri ‘Etz Chayyim, Sha‘ar ha-Shofar, ch. 5. 8 Cf. the usage of “opacity” [‘amamut] and “people” [‘am] in Liqqutei Amarim—Tanya, Sha‘ar ha-Yichud ve-ha-Emunah, ch. 7.

Chesed le-Abraham

357

[10.3]. Shabbat Shuvah/Rosh ha-Shannah SUMMARY OF TEACHING: 1. To understand that the New Year is the birthday of the world, first consider the outer, three-dimensional world, as perceived through the senses. 2. Now contrast it with the inner, multi-dimensional worlds of consciousness; 3. For every physical manifestation there is a spiritual root corresponding to a unifying spiritual reality. 4. All particular aspects of the world are recalled in a singular incipient point, imprinted with all of the power sustaining the existence of the world. 5. Today being the moment that your deeds start over implies that everything returns to its root and all powers are drawn from there into a single point. 6. An inscription of all the potencies and their intricacies for the entire year are written within the root of this point.

[10.4]. Shabbat Shuvah/Rosh ha-Shannah QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION: 1. How is your perspective on spiritual practice affected by this distinction between the outer, three-dimensional world as perceived through the senses versus the inner, multi-dimensional worlds of consciousness? 2. Why is it important to the evolution of your spiritual practice that every physical manifestation has a spiritual root corresponding to a unifying spiritual reality? 3. How does the moment when your deeds start over, everything returning to its root, and all powers are drawn from there into a single point affect your spiritual practice at the New Year? From moment to moment? 4. How might an inscription of all the potencies and their details for the entire year being written within the origin point empower your spiritual practice? Enhance your relationship to the divine within the mundane?

Glossary of Hebrew and Aramaic Terms This glossary includes terms from the sphere of religious mysticism, which we attempt to interpret in the spirit of R. Abraham Kalisker and the preceding tradition. For some entries, three- or four-letter combinations are given. These combinations are word roots, to which vowels are added to derive the actual words (given in brackets in the entries). alef-beit—alphabet of twenty-two Hebrew letters. ahavah—Love as the quality that counterbalances Fear (see yir’ah, middah). achd (achid, itachid)—embrace (that is, grasp and unite), link, grasp, clasp, seize, grab, clutch, latch on, snatch, attach, adhere, graft, connect, join, adjoin, band (together), hold, hold together, hold fast, hold firm, take hold, handle, tie, possess, unite, merge, splice, catch, grip, fasten, cling, intermingle, weave, interweave, intersect, interlink, compose, constitute, comprise, intertwine, blend. See Zohar 1:152b, itacheid be-ilana; 193a, achidan be-ilana—joined to the Tree of Life. See also ychd. achdut ha-pashut—literally, “simplex oneness.” Different modalities of the divine reality can open spiritual beings to deeper awareness of the undifferentiated oneness, in contrast to the filtering process that is manifest in the physical world (see tzimtzum). This undifferentiated oneness of the limitless primal reality is referred to more commonly in philosophical theology as “simplex.” amn (omana)—artistry, craftsmanship, worksmanship, skill; artisan; art, craft; handiwork. ‘ayin—the state of No-Thingness whereby the self is dissolved amidst the mystical experience of merging (see devequt). bittul—nullification, often of the ego or shell of self that needs to be shed in order to enter into a trance state leading to non-dual mystical apperception.

Glossary of Hebrew and Aramaic Terms

359

brit milah—refers both to the ritual ceremony of circumcising a male child on the eighth day as well as to the circumcised membrum. chalitza—the ritual of release by removing the shoe, derived from Deuteronomy 25:7–10. This now defunct ceremony was desgined to “release” the widow of a man who died childless so that she was able marry someone other than her brother-in-law. Although the union with a brother’s wife is incestuous and prohibited by Torah, in order to avert the extinction of the family line, the brother of the deceased is obligated to marry the widow in a yibum or levirate marriage. In the case of the brother refusing to marry the widow, Torah provides for this release ritual. If the woman refuses to cohabit with the brother-in-law, the Jewish law requires the surviving brother to exercize his right to refusal to release his sister-in-law, giving her the freedom to marry someone else. Prevention of levirate marriages was a moral imperative of the rabbis. Chanukkah—festival of lights commemorating the Maccabean victory over the Seleucid Greeks in 167 BCE and the rededication of the desecrated Jerusalem Temple [Chanukat ha-Bait]. According to the Chanukkah narrative, when the Jews attempted to rekindle the sacred lights in the Temple, they only found one small jug of unprofaned oil. Miraculously, this small kig kept the lights burning for eight days. Accordingly, the festival lasts eight days, and each night lights are kindled in the eight-branched candelabra [chanukiyah]. chayyot—literally, “animals,” and more generally, “living creatures.” In Ezekiel 1:5, this word is used to describe the wondrous details of an ecstatic vision. chbr (itchabbar)—join, conjoin, unite, converge, merge, connect, attach, combine, compose, collaborate, associate, participate, fraternize mechaber— connector, conjoiner, merger. chiyyut—“vitality” that is imbued by the divine. chomer hayuli—hylic matter. This is the way the divine descends into the manifest world of materiality. Travelling back to the beginning of this way enables a spiritual evolution of consciousness. The material body, even utterly decomposed, still retains within it hylic matter, from which a new form may emerge. There has to be a gap between the original and new form (what neo-Darwinists call a “missing link”), and that gap is found in hylic matter. chsd (chasid)—saint, devotee, pious one, devout one, faithful one (see chesed). da‘at—literally, intuitive knowledge, or eruption of consciousness. Da‘at often remains concealed from the ten manifest spheres of divine consciousness (see sefirot). As a nexus point between emotional states and cognition, this concealed sphere stands in opposition to Cartesian bifurcation of mind and body, or the demarcation of emotion and cognition. Unlike many philosophers who stated that emotion is the enemy of cognition, Jewish mystics often hold that needs to work through the emotional centers of one’s being in order to reach the true cognition. Emotions are not superfluous but essential to integral being. Thus, when emotions are balanced, leading to cognition,

360

D. Chesed le-Abraham

then a unified, organic, meaningful integrity for the human emerges as da‘at (see sefirot). dbq—cleave, cling, join, adjoin, conjoin, unite, adhere, attach, overtake, fuse; merge. itdabbaq, itdevaq, le-adbeqa—grasp, apprehend, comprehend, fathom, seize, absorb, attain, get hold of. devequt—a cultivated state of deep attunement that leads to the experience of merging, which could be brought on by a trance state whereby the self is emptied as in bittul (see above). A pure and simple reaching out and surrender without any ground of being, which thus requires ‘emunah. The spectrum of mystical experience being described ranges from sympathetic alignment to total absorption. dibbuq chaverim—“mystical companionship” that has at its core the aforementioned state of devequt. This experience of devequt is more horizontal than vertical. The collective, albeit a relatively small confraternity, is what facilitates the deeper attunement, attachment, and merging of devequt. emunah—often rendered as “faith” within the universal spiritual context of the Christian West, this translation remains insufficient for the application to the particular path of the Tiberian Hasidism. Starting with the frequent invocation of the cognate word amen in the response to a blessing, it denotes “faithfulness,” which is more than a faith based on a creed, as in the expression ne’emanut (“faithful, true”). Moreover, connoted here is an abiding sense of “conviction” that underlies “truthfulness.” The root from which these words come denotes the ability to strengthen or to fortify, so one responds amen as a demonstrative sign of confirming the blessing just articulated. In this sense, the term emunah connotes conformation, affirmation, corroboration, as part of its nuance. But emunah is more complex than “blind faith,” more nuanced than forcing oneself to believe something unreal or untenable. It connotes the total integration of the self in symmetric balance, without being skewed or fixated on any one state or emotional disposition, so one can ascend to the infinite with clarity and transparency. Depending on the context, emunah may be translated as “firmness,” “alignment,” or “integrity.” There is no commandment for emunah, since it is the basis of all religious life. Emunah is the ability to realize that what you believe in is not contingent upon the way you explain it, rather, you have a direct and clear relationship with that which cannot be apperceived. The mind is not the absolute arbiter of the spiritual relationship, for the purpose of knowing is not-knowing. In contrast to “blind faith,” the key for emunah is a knowing that is not-knowing, enlightened agnosis. ‘eruv (pl. ‘eruvei) tavshilin—a shared cooked dish that is used as part of a legal fiction to permit cooking on a holiday for a purpose beyond the day’s usage, namely, for a Sabbath immediately following. glgl (gilgel, gilgulim)—(v.) roll, revolve, turn, rotate (Zohar 110b), spin ( schemes Zohar 158b, 199a, 19; 201b, 4), put someone through ordeals; (n.) intrigue; torture, convolution; permutation of letters.

Glossary of Hebrew and Aramaic Terms

361

galgal—(rolling) wave. gilgul—rolling, whirling, revolving, revolution, rotation, turning, cycle, cycling, migration, transmigration, reincarnation. gilgulin de-mitgalgelan—cycles revolving. galgal be-gilgul—revolving in (many) convolutions. galgal ha-chozer ve-sovev—cycles (of constellations) revolving and returning. galgal ha-mazalot—Zodiac, wheel of the constellations organized according to astrological signs. hitqashrut—bonding or interconnecting between spheres, people, or within a community. In the same way that chemical bonding occurs, materials exchange electrons, so too does hitqashrut involve exchange of spiritual energy. hitlabshut—assuming the guise, or taking the role of, or manifested in. In the language of the Kabbalah, this term denotes the enshrouding of the divine presence, which is typically personified as a female. hishtalshelut—unfolding of the chain of being hsg (hasagah)—literally, “perception” or “grasp”; also “apperception,” in the sense that perception is limited to the somatic frame of senses in the phenomenal, whereas apperception can also refer to abstract realities or concepts in the realm of the noumenal. ila‘ah—transcendent, supernal, lofty, superior, supreme, superb, upper, high, on high, higher, highest, noble, ultimate, utmost, finest, paramount, eminent, esteemed, sublime, exalted, elevated, soaring, towering, magnificent, splendid, intense, heavenly, celestial. ‘alma ila‘ah—higher world, or upper world, supernal world, heavenly, celestial; sublime mystery. ilan de-kol chai—the cosmic Tree-that-is-All. This notion likely makes a veiled appearance early on in Ancient Israel, with a more sustained symbolic rendering in early medieval Jewish mystical literature of Provence. Jewish mysticism in its more theosophic iterations shifts back and forth in referring to this cosmic tree as either the Ilan or the ‘Etz Chayyim. iqar—root, essence, principle, source, essential element, main object, foundation, taproot. kofer be-iqar—idiomatically, “heretic.” Interpreted here as a state of unawareness where one is in denial of a deeper spiritual reality. kll (kelal)—(n.) totality, sum, summation, entirety, entire amount, consummation, sphere, realm, assemblage; general rule (essential) principle, category, class, state, generalization, generality; (adj.) total, whole, overall, all-inclusive, universal, comprehensive; (adv.) in general, together. kelala de-khola—totality of all, principle of all, principle encompassing all.

362

D. Chesed le-Abraham

kelil—(adj.) inclusive, all-inclusive; (v.) include, enclose, encompass, contain, combine, integrate, incorporate, merge, coalesce, fuse, blend, mingle, absorb, comprise, compose, compound, embrace, enfold, envelop, engulf, brought him under the aegis, imbue; complete. kelil be—composed of itkelil mi—comprises, composed of itkelilan—composed of, interwoven, interlaced, intertwined, intermingling, integrated, crowned le-akhlala—encompass, include, etc. lshn (lishana)—tongue, language, speech, term, phrase, expression, version ma’amar—“teaching,” “speech utterance,” often related to the creation of the world by a single divine utterance. It also comes to symbolize each and every inner direction created within all sentient beings. maqor—spring, fountain, source. middah (pl. middot)—spiritual attributes, qualities, or values that imbue human consciousness with divinity and allow for an awareness of the process of spiritual refinement. mochin—literally, “brains” or “mind”; a detached perspective of the self and its existence, which emerges from the view of the higher self. It transcends the totality of the mind in Da‘at and comprehends all the spiritual attributes of the middot, which are still not representative of ultimate reality that has no “I” at all. mi-darga le-darga—involution, rather than mere evolution. This term suggests an internal form of spiritual development or interior progress along the path of formation. Often this is measured through distance (ascending the divine mountain) or time (that is, from day to day, moment to moment). mi-kal le-chomer—drawing analogies from the minor to the major case. mishnah—Oral Law redacted by R. Judah the Prince, circa second century CE. mitzvah—often translated as “commandment”; more accurately, a sacred deed that informs broader spiritual practice. The Jewish tradition holds that there are 613 mitzvot given to the Jewish people, which command to do some things and to abstain from doing others. mshkh—draw, draw to, toward, conduct, channel, flow, stream, continue, convey, proceed, emanate, transmit, derive, extend, expand, stretch, pull, attract, prolong, persist, spread, drag, lure, seduce, allure. mussar—“self-refinement” treatises that promote a regular review of middot (see above). A misinterpretation of such treatises as merely “ethical” cordons off any layers of mystical experience present in the modern corpus of kabbalistic mussar. Key figures who promulgated this work of self-refinement within this context include the circle of R. Moshe Chayyim Luzzatto, Ga’on of Vilna, and others. nissayon—the principal trial(s) once experiences along the path of life.

Glossary of Hebrew and Aramaic Terms

363

nivra’im—all creatures fashioned in the process of creation, referred to here as sentient beings. The expression “sentient beings” gives a more globalized view of the ongoing impact of the creative force within the universe on all levels of existence, from inanimate to animate matter, from the plants to the animals, reaching all the way to the human kingdom. Thus, everything that we think is external to ourselves is actually present in the same unified field of existence that also includes us—a relation of interbeing that exists without any single center. ‘olam—literally, “world,” “universe.” The mystical import of the term refers to the fourfold matrix of divine consciousness, abbreviated as ABY”A (see the list below), which makes up the path of spiritual evolution. It is also used generically in relation to the spiritual attributes or middot. ‘olam ha-atzilut—unified consciousness; ‘olam ha-beri’yah—cognitive consciousness; ‘olam ha-yetzirah—emotional consciousness; ‘olam ha-‘assiyah—embodied consciousness. ‘olam ha-temurot—a phantasmagoric image in Kabbalah, approximately translated as “world of distortion” or “distorted mirrors.” In mishnaic terms, Temurah denotes a kind of substitution or replacement, wherein the human sacrifice can be substituted by sacrificing an animal. In the kabbalistic tradition, the usage of this term suggests that the replica of a spiritual reality reproduces, at best, the distorted reflection of a flawed mirror. Just like an ape resembles a human being, much of what appears in an external replication may show many similarities in the exterior attributes, but not in the interior ones—as contemplation shows. ‘ofan (pl. ‘ofanim)—the “spinning creatures” rotating on wheels of concentric circles. Used to denote the wondrous nature of the ecstatic vision as described in Ezekiel 1:16. orach—way, course, path; property or—light, luminescence. or yashar—“linear light,” attribute of Compassion (Chesed), whereby the upper realm flows forth towards receptive, lower sphere. Chesed is the Love that is directed by haste and running so that it overflows all limits and restraints, leading to the situation where one can become completely annihilated from reality with overwhelming merging of Love. or chozer—“returning light,” the attribute of Restraint (Din), whereby the lower realm flows forth as a more limited force. Din restrains and limits the otherwise overwhelming predilection of light to merge with the force of Chesed. ‘oref—nape of the neck, symbolically associated with hardness because it sounds similar to par’o. plsh (mefulash)—literally, “a path wide open.” This term connotes a spiritual support system, which is rooted in the divine vitality sustaining all sentient creatures, wide enough to encapsulate everything (see emunah).

364

D. Chesed le-Abraham

phelishtim—archenemy; tribe of Philistines as the archetype of evil (see sitra achra). partzuf (often used in plual form, partzufim)—holy configurations of divine energy in the form of countenances: ‘Atiqa Qadisha; Ze‘ir Anpin; Yisra’el Sabbah. The flow of divine love from its unmitigated source is a descent in the following stages: 1) ‘Atiqa Qadisha—“Holy One of Ancient Days,” the first stage of flow from the source of divine love emanating from a pure white beard of this divine persona. 2) Ze‘ir Anpin—“Young Impatient One,” the second stage of flow from the previous source of pure white that descends into the black beard of this divine persona. 3) Y  isra’el Sabbah—“Elder,” the flow of the divine love from its unmitigated source symbolized as the dark beard turning white (pure love), causing the young dark beard to appear as if aging. pra—what allows for something real to be disclosed as the entrance level of fear (see yir’ah); par’o—Pharaoh, the Egyptian demagogue who represents the archetype of evil (see sitra achra). psht (itpeshat)—spread, extend, expand, stretch, disperse, distribute, diffuse, scatter, disseminate, emanate, ramify, branch, permeate; strip; straighten, smooth, smoothen. See Zohar II:84b, 1. ptch—open patach qeri’a—opened with a verse; explained the verse as referring to, in connection with; unraveled a verse. ptq (pitqa)—slip, decree, letter, note, list, record (derived from Greek pittakion). pitaq—slip, memorandum, name slip carried by the Angel of Death. See Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:2; Zohar III:15a, 156b. qdm—(v.) anticipate, precede, preface, prepare; advance, intercept, do early, do before, do already, arise early, come early, arrive early, hasten, do or be first, be the first to, put or place or mention first, begin (with), initiate, introduce, attain first, set out, forestall (prevent by prior measures), take precaution, foresee, be zealous, take precedence, give preference to; (hasten to) intercede; speak up; do in time; (adv.) ahead of time, in advance, before its time, beforehand, prematurely, previously, soon, quickly, immediately. qadma’a—previous, preceding, former, original, first, earlier; primary, primal. qadma’e—ancients. mi-le-qadmin, ki-de-be-qadmita—as before, as originally, as previously, at first. qdsh—holy, sacred, separate from the mundane qaddishei ‘elyonin—holy ones of the highest, supernal holy ones. See Daniel 7:18. qudsha—holiness, realm of holiness, sanctuary. qshr—(v.) bind, link, join; connect, attach, fasten, intermingle, interlink, catch, entangle; (n.) nexus, bond, knot, tie, weave, braid, wreathe, cluster, joint; (adj.) concatenate. See Keter under sefirot. le-qashra qishra—bind the bond, tie the knot, forge links

Glossary of Hebrew and Aramaic Terms

365

qshr—(v.) entangle, bind in bonds; (n.) sorery. See Zohar II:25a, 37b–38a, 52b, 69a. qelipah—literally, “husk” or “obstruction.” An oppositional form of divine personification in dualistic cosmology. qtrg—denounce, accuse, prosecute, incriminate, assail, attack, provoke, incite, antagonize, contest, contend, harass, bring charges, level accusation; persecute, hostile, object, oppose. ratzon—desire or ultimate will of and within the divine. ratzon ‘elyon—supernal desire or original, primordial will of and within the divine. This original will is the most benevolent, pristine, bountiful impulse of the divine desire to move to creation and its playful, creative force, which the human seeker tries to access. The Kabbalah states that this force is eternally present, but the seeker needs to access it in all of its sublimity and deep originality. See Keter under sefirot. rgl (regel)—leg, step. hergel—a spiritual path that one conquers step by step. ruach ha-qodesh—literally, “holy spirit” or “divine spirit.” This expression connotes deepest inspiration, as if the divine source was breathing spirit, as it were, into the moment, into the circumstance, in the seeker. re’shit—primal point of beginning, as opposed to eternal origin. seder— order, chronology or flow of events. Most often used to refer to the Passover Symposium. Also relates to the ordering of the cosmos in a chain of being. sefirot—spheres or vessels of divine consciousness that make the infinite manifest to consciousness. There are ten explicit, main spheres of divine consciousness, from the most refined sphere, Keter, through to the most coarse, Malkhut. Implicit to this system is a pseudo-sphere that oscillates in and out of consciousness, known as Da‘at, representing intuitive knowledge. (1) Keter—“Crown,” the crown of consciousness, a state of No-Thing, the first glimmer of possible manifestation into spheres; a most subtle and refined state. (2) Chokhmah—“Wisdom,” the archetypal Father. In the West, the word “wisdom” refers to a gradually increased sagacity, while in Kabbalah the term chokhmah refers to a flash of insight, a primordial point from which more extensive knowledge can grow into categories of cognition, captured and nurtured by the archetypal Mother, Binah. Chokhmah is also connected, and often referred to as, a process of nullification of the ego, known as bittul and leading to ayin or No-Thing. It is also the beginning of everything, the original point. (3) Binah—“Discernment,” the archetypal Mother. Connected with it is the process of spiritual involution within the system of spheres (sefirot). The movement from acognitive luminal apperception to not-knowing in the heart passes through the forty-nine gateways of Discernment and goes all the way back to the root or the origin, reaching to the infinite Without End.

366

D. Chesed le-Abraham

(4) Chesed—love, lovingkindess, kindness, faithful love, steadfast love, grace, faithfulness, goodness, graciousness; loyalty. (5) Gevurah—rigor, judgment, restraint. (6) Tif ’eret—“Harmony,” the mediating point. (7) Netzach—perpetuity, eternality. (8) Hod—“Splendor,” humility. (9) Yesod—connector, erotic center (referring to the male attrbiutes—phallus or the energy of yan). (10) Malkhut—ground of being, embodiment. S”M—abbreviation for the fallen angel, SaMa’EL, symbolizing the opposing, demonic force (see sitra achra, qtrq). serafim—literally, “fiery serpents,” originally, mythically conceived serpent deities, later used to denote the wondrous nature of the ecstatic vision as described in Isaiah 4:29 and 30:6. skl (haskeil)—“cognitive spirit,” an aspect of intellect that can grasp spirit. On haskeil see Nehemiah 9:20: “You gave also Your good spirit to instruct them, and withheld not Your manna from their mouth, and gave them water for their thirst.” A common interpretation here is the gift of “enspirited cognition.” shv (teshuvah)— return, turn back, repent; return to God. ba‘al teshuvah—literally, “master of return,” one who returns to God. Shekhinah—the “Indwelling Presence,” the immanent, feminine divine presence. In the Kabbalah, it is the symbolic interface of the divine realm that allows it to connect with the human phenomenal realm. It is the personified area where heaven and earth meet (see Malkhut). shemitah—the sabbatical year where the land lies fallow. shna—turn, change. ishtenei—mutated, deteriorated. shanah—“year,” the accumulation of mutations in time. shinui—“change,” the nullification of the natural reality in the ascent beyond the lower nature. shlemut—integration, wholeness. sitra—side, dimension, realm, direction, aspect (of astrological influence), facet, flank, angle, page, corner, respect, perspective; mode; inclination, intention, tendency, characteristic, type, species, way; realm; piece; segment. sitra achra—other side, the realm of distortion, contamination, evil. sitra de-qedusha—holy side, the realm of the sacred, wholeness, integrity. skl (istakkal)—gaze, contemplate, meditate, reflect, consider, ponder, speculate, envision, envisage, imagine, observe, notice, regard, investigate, examine, see, look, look into, look out for, behold, have an eye for, be watchful, careful, scrutinize, perceive, realize, glimpse, infer, foresee, oversee

Glossary of Hebrew and Aramaic Terms

367

Soul, levels of: nefesh—literally, “soul,” life, being, essential being, essential self, inner nature, breath, life breath. It connotes the libidinal impulse in the lowest grade of soul. nefesh ha-sikhli—literally, “intelligent soul,” often rendered as over-soul. nefesh ha-behemi—literally, “animal soul,” often rendered as under-soul. ruach—spiritual level of the soul; neshama—pneumatic level of the soul; chaya—vital energy of the soul; yechida—uniting consciousness of the soul absorbed in ultimate oneness. ta‘am—reason, incentive, sense, motivation, meaning, exegesis, argument, rule, law, taste, basis, intonation. Also refers to cantillation note. TaNT”A—a mnemonic mapping of notes [Ta‘amim], vowels [Nekudot], crowns [Tagin], and letters [‘Otiyot]. It symbolizes the embodiment of the infinite within the finite scroll of Scripture in particular, and in the Hebrew language more broadly. ta‘anug—often translated as “joy,” “pleasure,” but the depth of this pleasure is best rendered by the term jouissance. tefillah—conventional prayer. On the one hand, it is the fixed liturgy of the synagogue. On the other hand, it refers to personal, petitionary prayer. It can also refer to a surrender or emptying of self. techiyat ha-metim—the doctrine of resurrection that finds its most sustained articulation in post-biblical literature of the rabbis from the second to the sixth centuries CE. tqn (tiqqen)—(v.) mend, repair, recast, refound (glass), refine, enhance, improve, prepare, ready, brace oneself, cultivate, tend, prime, enable, correct, proper, put (oneself) right, precise, rectify, perfect, restore, align, realign, straight, order, set in order, configure, arrange, array, adorn, embellish, decorate, ornament, design, weave, deploy, equip, furnish, establish, set, set up, place, make firm, confirm, harmonize, symmetrize, ripen, mature, remedy, amend, straighten, pave, smooth, make fit, qualified, suited, suitable, convenient, make up for, compensate, intone (song), poise, mold itself, attend, maintain, uphold, sustain, renew, reinforce, ensure; (n.) cosmic reconstruction, reparation. ittaqan al tiqquneih—restored to perfection, perfectly mended. taqin—good, well-organized. atqin—prepare, ordain, arrange, array, equip, attune, prime, invent, compose, innovate, institute, invest (someone with), establish, enact, inaugurate, install, erect, introduce, prescribe, array, ordain, institute (for example, evening prayer), affix, provide. atqin orcha qaman, orcha mittetaqna qaman—has paved the way for us; the way before us is paved, smooth; our path is made straight before us, auspicious. ‘ad la-itqan—not yet revealed. tiqquna—preparation, equipment, ritual, rite, restorative rite, restoration, reintegration, mending (of one’s being), (make) amends, correction, remedy,

368

D. Chesed le-Abraham

reparation, enhancement, refinement, harmony, perfection, adorning, adornment, array, arraying, arrayal, arrangement, adjustment, finishing touch, configuration, maintaining; administration (of justice); institution; well-being (bodily) constitution; trappings, fixtures, accoutrements; procedure; weapon be-tiqquna—refinedly atqin tiqqun—restore perfection. tiqqunin (of the beard)—enhancements, curls. tiqqun ‘olam—social order, welfare; working the earth, preparing the soil, cultivation; restoration, mending, enhancement, harmony, adorning, arraying, maintaining, perfection of the world. See Zohar I:38a: “rearranged the world for them.” Torah—literally, the sacred teachings revealed at Mount Sinai, often referred to as the Ten Commandments and transmitted as the Five Books of Moses or the Pentateuch. A more expansive connotation refers to all of Jewish knowledge, both Written Torah and Oral Torah. tzdq—(tzaddiq, pl. im)—literally, a “righteous one.” A person in a state of deep devotion; those exemplary figures who can maintain the union, bond, or connection to the divinity even in exile, dispersal, and plurality. tzaddiq ve-ra’ lo—literally, “the righteous one experiences evil” and suffers. The quandary that emerges here is also referred to as theodicy, namely, that the moral assurances of the Torah as constructed by the rabbinic imagination have forsaken belief about divine retribution measure for measure. tzedaqah—the righteous act of social justice, whereby one rebalances the scales of injustice in the world by reaching out to people in need. tzimtzum—contraction,shrinking. This term originated in the story of the primordial creation of the world (cosmogenesis), where the mystical account, especially in Lurianic Kabbalah, reveals facets of the divine hidden in plain sight. The creative act of generating a new world becomes possible when the divine Creator enters deep into a state of jouissance, and all of divine consciousness that can manifest does so as the divine totality. This manifestation can happen only when the infinite Divine is squeezed through a strainer. The elf-reveal of the Divine (theophany) is meant to enable a connection between the human and divine. The himan being undergoes a similar process of revealing the true self. The real spiritual “I” of the human being cannot exist until there is a form to receive it. This meta-programming, which is the self-assertion of the essence, leads to the manifestation of the real “I-ness,” anokhiyut. Life is only real when “I am”—anokhi (an emphatic Hebrew word for “I,” often used in divine proclamations). True spiritual progress demands that one has to work on commanding self, ani (a more common Hebrew word for “I”), to evolve into a unified self or anokhi, in order to connect to the divine “I”. This scrutiny of practical consciousness leads to more mindful living. The world becomes real when “I” becomes real; but too often the human remains a prisoner of its pre-programmed persona.

Glossary of Hebrew and Aramaic Terms

369

yegiah‘—the engagement of serving the ultimate reality through a form of agency. yetzer ha-ra‘—evil impulse ychd (le-yachada, yichuda)—effecting, actualizing unification (union, unity) (fittingly); unite, unify; be-yichuda chada—in unison. See achd. yir’ah—(n.) literally, fear, including terror, but also awe, reverence, fear; (v.) revere, be in awe (of). Once one realizes the enormity of what is crystallized in the physical, then the mysterium tremendum emerges, ultimately leading to the transparency of self before the divine.

Index of Names

Abdullah Pasha, 24n16 Abraham ha-Levi of Safed, 119n74 Abraham ha-Malʼakh (the Angel), 92n8, 104n36, 181, 195n39, 210, 253, 282 Kavvanat ha-Mivkeh, 282 Abulafia, Chayyim, 31n46 Abulafia, Yitzchak, 43-44, 107 Aharon ha-Gadol of Pukshin, 29, 45, 49n61 Aharon ha-Levi of Vitebsk, 41, 206 Aharon ha-Qatan, 41, 206 Ahmad al-Jazzar, 23, 37 Akiva, 29, 103n36 Alexander the Great, 102n33 Alkabetz, Shlomo, 288n23 Allemano, Johanan, 95n13 Alshekh, Moshe, 98 Ann-Lee, 101n33 Asher of Stulin (Stolin), 49, 104-105 Avigdor of Pinsk, 88, 92n7, 106 Azulai, Chayyim Yosef David (ChiD”A), 23, 98-100, 123n82 Chesed le-Abraham, 21, 50-52, 60-62, 75, 92, 111, 124, 126, 142, 150151, 163, 172, 195, 210, 223226, 228-231, 237, 245-246, 248-249, 253-254, 263-264, 277-357 Devash le-Fi, 99 Baʻal Shem Tov (Yisraʼel ben Eliʻezer of Miedzyborz), 8-10, 12, 14, 18, 24-25, 35, 38-39, 50, 52, 54-55, 61, 90-91, 94, 100n32, 103n36, 114, 118, 130n7, 132n12, 135-136, 138, 152-154, 175, 179, 181-182, 194, 204, 207, 228n55, 240n66, 243-244, 251-253, 260, 262, 280-282, 306, 331, 339-340 Seder Netillat Yadayim, 282

Bahya ibn Paquda Duties of the Heart, 123n82 Barnai, Yaʻaqov, 128n108, 187-188, 214 Igrot, 211n6 Barthes, Roland, 256-257 Barukh of Miedzyborz, 14n3, 31n49, 3334, 47-48, 50n1, 106, 282 Bassola, Moses ben Mordekhai, 241n67 Ben Zion, A. Sar Shalom Sharabi, 116n65 Benjamin, Walter, 279 Bodek, Menachem Mendel Seder ha-Dorot ha-Chadash, 91n3, 247n74 Buber, Martin, 94, 218 Be-Fardes ha-Chasidut, 99n30, 101n32 Chayyim ben Moshe ibn Attar Or ha-Chayyim, 336 Chayyim Chaykel of Amdor, 17 Cordovero, Moses (RaM”aQ), 97n24, 119, 124 Tomer Devorah, 115-119, 124, 144n53 Dan, Yosef, 112n53 David of Michaliv Sod Echad de-Qriʼat Shema, 282 Dinaburg, B.Z., 7, 9-11, 56n35 Dov Ber of Mezrich, 8, 11, 14-15, 19-20, 34, 38, 46, 50, 52-53, 58, 76-78, 91-93, 103, 112, 114-116, 119, 127-128, 130134, 154, 158n92, 164-165, 171-172, 194-195, 206, 210, 217, 246n74, 258260, 266, 268, 270, 273, 280 Maggid Devarav le-Yaʻaqov, 121, 125127, 130n8, 134n19, 137n28, 141n42, 154, 158n91, 216, 223,

Index of Names

225-228, 230, 236n63, 240n66, 243-244, 246n74, 287n21, 300n21, 308n25, 330, 341n5 Dubnow, Simon, 91n4 Toldot ha-Chasidut, 8n16, 91-92, 209n1 Ebreo, Leone (Judah Abravanel) Dioaloghi d’Amore, 95 Eliʻezer of Disne, 19n26, 40n25, 42-44, 47, 107-109, 181 Elior, Rachel, 108n45, 253n85 Elishar, Yaʻaqov, 23 Eliyahu, the Vilna Gaʼon, 14-18, 21, 37, 64, 91n3, 254, 362 Emden, Jacob, 87 Etkes, Immanuel, 184-185, 188 Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, 184, 191n27 Ficino, Marcillo, 95n13 Frank, Jacob, 7, 242n68 Gaʼon of Zaltziv, 34 Garcon, Yosef ben Meir, 116n65 Gefner, Y.S. ʼOr ha-Shemesh, 116n65 Gerlitz, Menachem Mendel Sifrei Avot ha-Chasidut be-Eretz haQodesh, 92n6, 111n49 Gershon of Kutov, 24n17, 244n71 Glazer, Aubrey L., 135n22, 175 Granatstein, Yechiel, 91n2 The Students, 90-92, 123n82, 210n4 Green, Arthur, 100n32 Devotion and Commandment, 247n75 Greenstein, David, 282 Gries, Zeʼev, 210, 214-217, 221n39 Sefer, Sofer ve-Sippur, 243n70 Halevi, A.A. Erkei ha-Aggadah ve-ha-Halakhah, 116n65 Halpern, Yisraʼel, 12, 36n12, 55, 122n81 The Hasidic Immigration, 42n34 Hayyim Haika of Amdura, 80 Heilman, Chayyim Meir Beit Rabbi, 103-104 Henelish, Leib, 109-110 Herker, Tzevi Hirsh, 33n61, 44 Heschel, Abraham Joshua, 333

371

Hillel, 79 Hillman, David Tzevi, 45n44 Igrot, 45n44, 92n7, 158n92, 186n8, 190-191 Hopstein, Yisroel (Maggid of Kosnitz), 104 Horodetzky, S.A., 14n2, 93n11 Horovitz, Shmuʼel Shmelke, 21 Horowitz, Isaiah (Shelah) Shnei Luchot ha-Berit, 103n36 Siddur Shaʻar ha-Shamayim, 103n36 Hundert, Gershon David, 3, 103n36, 210, 255 Idel, Moshe, 100n32, 119n74, 244n68, 255, 260 Imrei Tzaddiqim, 211-212 Jacob ben Asher Orakh Chayyim, 394n23 Joseph Ashkenazi, 260 Kahana, A., 93n11 Kalisker, Alexander, 64 Kalisker, Yisraʼel Eliʻezer, 64 Kalonymus Kalman of Cracow Maʼor va-Shemesh, 82-83 Karlin, Aharon (Aharon ha-Gadol of Karlin), 10-12, 49n61, 63n56 Kitover, Gershon, 153 Kozianer, Yisraʼel, 43 Krasner, Chayyim, 34n1 Krassen, Miles, 255, 282 Kutover, Abraham Gershon, 24n17, 244n71 Leshem, Tzevi, 282 Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev, 19, 28, 34n2, 37, 45-46, 121n80 Or ha-Emet, 121n80, 227n53, 227228, 233n59, 271-275 Liebes, Y., 90n2, 99n30, Liqqutei Ykarim, 124n85 Loewenthal, Naftali, 198-199, 315n6 Communicating the Infinite, 188n16, 195n40, 245n73 Luria, Yitzchak, 39, 97-98, 113, 125-126, 151-152, 162, 164, 179-180, 204, 215, 217, 226, 241-242, 265, 368 ʻEtz Chayyim, 241n67, 309 Luzzato, Moshe Chayyim, 362 Messilat Yesharim, 120n77

372

Index of Names

Mahler, Raphael, 10-11 Maimon, Solomon, 10, 12, 88n17, 114115, 131, 164-165, 275 Sefer Chayyei Shlomoh Maimon, 114-115 Maimonides, Moses, 196n43, 272, 286n16 The Guide of the Perplexed, 80, 139n35, 199n53 Mishneh Torah, 118, 158n91, 189, 291n49 Marcus Aurelius Mediations, 116n65 Margaliot, M., 95n15 Mashrat, Chayyim, 45 Mayse, Ariel Evan, 191n26, 255, 259n13, 265-266, 268 Speaking Infinites, 270n55 Meʼir (Rabbi), 29, 44-48 Meʼir Baʻal ha-Nes, 29 Mekhon Peri ha-Aretz, 282 Menachem Mendel of Horodek, 15, 19 Menachem Mendel of Minsk, 15 Menachem Mendel of Premishlan, 25 Menachem Mendel of Shklov, 64 Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, 21-22, 2425, 27-34, 37, 40-42, 46, 52, 54, 56n35, 62-63, 69-71, 76, 79, 86-89, 91, 93n11, 103, 105, 112, 124, 127-130, 133, 136, 138-141, 143, 145, 149, 152, 155-156, 158, 162-164, 166, 168, 172, 174-177, 180-181, 185-186, 195, 201-203, 209212, 214n19, 225, 237, 251-252 Liqqutei Amarim, 22, 24, 26-34, 41, 43, 51, 53-56, 62-64, 79, 86-87, 92n9, 110, 126, 180, 201n57, 211-212, 265, 268, 270-271, 273, 275 Peri ha-Aretz, 54 Menachem Nahum of Chernobyl, 28n35, 195 Meshulam Feibish of Zbarz Yosher Divrei Emet, 124n85, 247n74, 259 Meshulam Zusye of Annopol, 19 Montefiore, Moses, 37 Mordekhai Chayyim of Slonim, 71 Mordekhai of Chernobyl, 195, 282 Mordekhai of Lakhovitz, 47-49 Moshe of Satanov Sefer Mishmeret ha-Qodesh, 56n35 Nachman of Bratzlav, 35, 100n32, 141n43, 245n73, 258, 264, 282

Nachmanides, 349n23 Nahman of Horodenka, 25n17 Napoleon, 37 Natan of Gaza Sefer ha-Beriʼah, 99n30, 101n33 Nygren, Anders, 95n13 Or ha-Chesed, 282 Parhi, Chayyim ben Shaul, 24, 37, 43n40 Paul, 102n33 Pavel (Tsar), 106 Piekarz, Mendel, 212n11, 214n16 Pinechas of Koretz Mikhtav Qodesh, 282 Plato, 95n13, 98n27 Symposium, 94, 214 Plotinus Enneads, 95n13 Polen, Nehemia, 135n22, 175, 255 Politzker, Yisraʼel, 21-22, 24, 27-29 Polonsky, Antony, 141n44 Polonus, Shmarya, 13n28 Reiner, Elchanan, 212n8 Rouseau, J.J. Confessions, 114n58 Rubin, Eli, 152n73 Saʻadiah Gaʼon, 96 Schatz-Uffenheimer, Rivka, 40, 121n80, 225n46, 244n72 Scholem, Gershom, 8-10, 50n2, 60n45, 94, 125, 217-218, 220n37, 243n70, 245n73, 252n82 Sefer Yetzirah, 291, 324, 353 Shabbetai ha-Kohen, 140n38 Shabbetai Tzevi, 7, 31, 99n30, 101n33, 106, 241-242, 251 Sharabi, Sar Shalom, 97-98 Shelomoh Zalman ha-Kohen, 34, 64n5 Shevet Mussar, 116n65 Shimʻon bar Yochai (RaSh”Bi), 29, 97-98, 100, 115, 118, 300 Tiqqunei ha-Zohar, 193, 233, 241n67, 315, 329, 341, 346 Shivchei AR”I, 98 Shivchei ha-BeSh”T, 91n3, 100n32, 103n36, 114, 252n82 Shlomo of Lutsk, 243-244 Shmuʼel of Kaminka

Index of Names

Maʻase Mishkan, 282 Shneerson, Yosef Yitzchaq (AdMo”R), 18-19, 108-109 Shneʼur Zalman of Liady (RaSha”Z), passim Beʼur ʻEser Sefirot ʻal Derekh haʻAvodah, 282 Liqqutei Amarim – Tanya, 135n22, 145n57, 147n60, 150n69, 160, 173, 180n158, 183, 199 Sefer shel Beinonim, 39, 135n22, 173, 179-180, 189, 201, 207, 221n39, 249-250 Liqqutei Torah, 135n22, 161n99 Maʼamarei Admor Ha-Zaken, 161n99 Torah Or, 135n22 Shohet, Gershon, 34 Sifre Tzaddiqim, 282 Suleiman Pasha, 24n16 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, 96 Targum Yonatan, 215 Teitelbaum, 22n5 Ha-Rav mi-Liadi, 122n81 Tishby, Yisaiah, 90n1, 112n53 Tzavaʼat ha-RIVa”Sh, 154, 224, 228, 230n56, 235n61, 240n66, 297n6 Tzevi Hirsh of Zidichov, 245n73 Sur me-Raʻ ve-ʻAseh Tov, 245n73 Tzvi Hirsh of Smotritch Ketem Paz, 264 Uceda, S., 116n65 Urbach, E.E., 95 Vidas, Eliyahu de Reʼishit Chokhmah, 99n30, 119-120, 123n82, 144, 163-164 Totzʼot Chayyim, 119 Vilensky, Mordekhai, 18-19, 202 Chasidim and Mitnaggedim, 103n35, 108n45 Vital, Chayyim Peri ʻEtz Chayyim, 352

373

Walden, Aharon Shem ha-Gedolim ha-Chadash, 247n74 Weiss, Joseph, 54-55, 59, 61, 63n56, 90-92, 112, 121-122, 124-125, 127, 210-217 Wolf, Shabbatai Joseph, 114n58 Wolfson, Elliot, 255 Wurm, Sh., 102n33 Yaʻaqov of Smela (Smelaner), 27-28, 32, 45, 48 Yaʻaqov Shimshon of Shpetiavke, 34, 36, 43 Yaʻaqov Yitzchaq of Lublin, 240n65 Yaʻaqov Yosef of Pollonye, 153, 239-240, 243 Ben Porat Yosef, 244n71 Toldot Yaʻaqov Yosef, 229n54, 239n65 Tzafnat Paʼaneʻach, 239-240 Yehiel-Mikhal of Zlochov, 20 Yekutiel of Rome Maʻalot ha-Middot, 120n77 Yisakhar Bar of Lubavich, 27-29 Yisakhar Bar of Zalb, 34 Yitzchaq of Satanov Imrei Binah, 152n74 Zahir al-Omar, 23, 31 Zebi Hirsh, 34 Zeʼev Wolf of Zhitomir, 131-132, 220n37, 275 Or ha-Meʼir, 132-133, 220n37, 271n58, 274-275 Zohar Zunana, Barukh, 27 Zusman, Eliʻezer, 44 Zweifel, Eliezer Shalom al Yisraʼel, 80n10 of

Index of Sources

Hebrew Bible

Genesis 1:1, 287, 290, 330 1:16, 196 2:3, 296, 299 2:4, 335 2:7, 96, 215 2:18, 139 5:2, 329 8:22, 298 10:25, 120n77 10:26, 120n77 12:1-17:27, 283-295 12:1, 248, 289 12:2, 195, 290, 314 12:3, 283, 285 12:9, 289 15:6, 318 15:7, 247 21:5, 296, 300 22:14, 298 23:1-25:18, 296-302 24:1, 296, 300 28:10, 176 Exodus 14:10, 138 14:13, 197 14:31, 234, 316 19:3, 336n8 19:5, 349n23 20:1-3, 290, 293 20:8, 288n23 21:1-24:18, 303-312 21:2, 303, 306 22:12, 142 23:5, 118n72 24:7, 233, 315-316 25:18, 120

27:20, 171 28:29, 156, 158 30:11-34:35, 314-320 32:16, 273n68 32:20, 307 33:18, 328, 331 38:21, 303 Leviticus 19:14, 196, 315 19:18, 55, 91n2, 116, 167, 192, 213, 235 Numbers 6:24, 290 10:2, 266 12:6-8, 314, 317 24:2, 165 25:10-30:1, 321-327 25:12, 321, 326 Deuteronomy 3:23-7:11, 328-332 3:23, 328 4:7, 290, 293 4:19, 305 4:24, 322 4:29, 307 4:39, 150-151, 342 5:4, 265 6:5, 196, 315 6:6, 190 6:7, 291 10:20, 240 15:7, 140n38 15:18, 137 17:13, 285 17:15, 196 20:1, 225, 341 20:16, 304 25:7-10, 359

Index of Sources

26:16, 265n36 26:17, 349 26:17-19, 345 30:19, 291 31:18, 304 32:9, 305 33:5, 352 II Samuel 22:31, 266n41 23:3, 230, 311 1 Kings 5:5, 31 18:25, 284 Isaiah 2:5, 285 4:29, 366 6:2, 233n59 6:3, 222 11:9, 325 30:6, 366 33:15, 51n7 40:3, 132 41:8, 284 42:18, 239n65 43:7, 291 45:7, 334 50:2, 240 51:12-52:12, 333-338 52:12, 334, 336-337 54:1-10, 339-343 54:1-8, 339 54:9-10, 339 54:10, 340 56:1, 51n7 60:1-22, 344-351 60:1-3, 344 60:4-18, 344 60:19-22, 344 Jeremiah 13:11, 123n84 17:12, 123 Ezekiel 1:5, 359 1:14, 297 1:16, 363 1:26, 267 Hosea 11:4, 263 Amos 5:6, 51n7 Micah

6:8, 51n7 7:5, 166 Habakkuk 2:4, 46, 51, 185, 232, 314, 318 4:2, 195-196 Zechariah 14:6-7, 296 14:7, 301 Malachi 2:5, 322 3:6, 335 3:16, 54 Psalms 1:4, 305 4:7, 192-193 8:6, 342 15:2-5, 51n7 16:8, 224 18:31, 266 19:4, 132 29:7, 161 32:10, 305 33:6, 293 37:5, 137 40:6, 308 45:14, 259 51:12, 157 51:17, 292 55:19, 84 58:2, 292 63:7, 156 69:19, 169, 325 85:2, 142 89:3, 147, 334 92:10, 325 104:31, 309 106:2, 299 145:19, 130n8 Proverbs 3:6, 147, 228n55 3:19, 323-324, 329 3:20, 325 3:27, 245 4:7, 346 6:23, 248, 289 10:1, 310 11:25, 222 17:26, 284 22:9, 251 23:15, 310 25:2, 244, 330

375

376

Job

Index of Sources

27:21, 161 30:5, 266 31:25, 303, 308, 310

28:12, 78, 121, 150, 198n50, 230, 233, 281, 316-317, 324, 346 28:20, 235 28:21, 329 Song of Songs 5:6, 229, 286, 228, 337 5:11, 286 8:1, 329, 331 Lamentations 3:23, 323 Ecclesiastes 1:5, 146 3:14, 323 7:12, 346 7:14, 139 12:13, 323 Daniel 7:9, 286, 348 7:18, 364 Nehemiah 9:20, 366

Midrash

Aggadic Genesis Rabbah 6:4, 120n77 12:9, 329 12:10, 96n15 14:4, 96n16, 215 20:2, 304 28:3, 288 33:4, 299 37:7, 120n77 68:6, 176 Exodus Rabbah 5:9, 95n15 Leviticus Rabbah 1:11, 95n15 4:6, 116n65 18:3, 273n68 19:18, 116 36:4, 290, 330 Numbers Rabbah 1:6, 235 19:15, 235 21:3, 322 23:9, 285

Song of Songs Rabbah 5:3, 331 Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:2, 364 Tanchuma, 95-96, 132, 196, 265n36, 268, 287, 290, 303, 314, 328 Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, 335, 355 Midrash Shmuel, 116n65 Midrash Tehillim 142 Tanna de-Be Eliyahu, 116n65 Halakhic Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʻel, 116n65, 197, 268, 286 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, 116n65 Sifre Deuteronomy, 140n38, 190n23, 322 Midrash Talpiyot, 228n55 Mirandola, Pico della, 95n13

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah

Avot 1:6, 123n82 1:15, 118 1:7, 117 1:15, 118n73 2:1, 340 2:9, 117 2:10, 116 2:12, 65 3:1, 323, 325, 345 3:9, 186, 336 3:14, 349 3:17, 186 5:1, 96n15 5:16, 329 6:1, 269 6:2, 273 6:5, 56, 174 Berakhot 6:1, 349 Chagigah 2:1, 244 Kiddushin 4:14, 137 Rosh Hashanah 21:2, 342n15

Index of Sources

Talmud

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 2b, 298-299 8a, 94n11 43b, 118n73 58a, 148 61a, 96n16, 215 Shabbat 33b, 115n61, 300 34a, 115n61 88a, 286, 310n32 106b, 39n22 119b, 96n15, 299 Eruvin 2b, 304 Pesakhim 3a, 118n73 3b, 287 113b, 118n72 Rosh Hashanah 27a, 161n100, 288 Yoma 28b, 229-230, 248, 289, 329 Sukkah 5b, 120 45b, 220 56b, 236 Beitza 12b, 299n17 Taʻanit 4a, 91n3 7a, 171 Megillah 6b, 290 11a, 120n77 Moʻed Qatan 16b, 231, 311 Chagigah 3b, 175n141 12a, 121, 246n74 13a, 186 Yebamot 49b, 196, 314 Nedarim 8b, 179 Sotah 10b, 120n77 14a, 147, 268 Kiddushin 40a, 284

Bava Kamma 60b, 132 Bava Batra 16a, 289 60a, 165 Sanhedrin 82a, 326 106a, 143 Makkot 23b, 51n7 24a, 195, 232, 246, 290, 314 Shevuot 3a, 53 39a, 216, 236 Horayot 14a, 91n3 Menachot 68b, 272n66 Hullin 89a, 292 139b, 304 Niddah 30b, 248, 293

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:3, 132

Zohar

I:11b, 133n15 I:16b, 271n62 I:22a, 149n66 I:38a, 368 I:38a-b, 149n66 I:41a, 300 I:51a, 322 I:55b, 149n66 I:60b, 268n46 I:78a, 248, 289 I:81b, 138n33 I:90a, 265n37 I:94b, 265n37 I:98b, 265n37 I:101a, 144n55 I:110b, 360 I:122b, 120n77 I:152b, 358 I:158b, 360 I:199a, 360 I:201b, 360 I:204a, 291 II:3a, 149n66

377

378

Index of Sources

II:23b, 149n66 II:25a, 365 II:34a, 289 II:37b-38a, 365 II:47a, 138n33 II:52b, 365 II:69a, 365 II:84a, 287 II:84b, 364 II:96b, 331 II:162b, 304 II:190b, 164n111 III:15a, 364 III:53b, 140 III:120a, 324

III:124a, 167n119, 192 III:138b, 233, 315n11 III:156b, 364 III:168a-b, 120n77

New Testament

John 12:24, 121n80 I Corinthians 12:26-27, 116n65 I Galatians 3:27-28, 116n65 Colossians 3:10-11, 116n65

‫אד‬

‫ר’ אברהם מקאליסק בדרך עלייתו לארץ ישראל‬

‫מקאליסק שתה עד שנשתכר מעט‪ ,‬ואחרי הסעודה הלך לנוח קימעה ונרדם על מיטתו‪.‬‬ ‫תוך כדי שנתו הגיעה האניה לחופי ארץ ישראל וצוה הרב הקדוש מוויטבסק לאנשיו שיורידהו מהספינה‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫ויזהרו שלא יקיצוהו משנתו‪ ,‬וכך עלתה בידו להביאו לארץ ישראל‪.‬‬

‫ד‬ ‫הרב הקדוש מוויטבסק והרב הקדוש מקאליסק לא התפללו יחד גם בהיותם בעיר העתיקה טבריה‪ .‬פעם‬ ‫בצפרא דשבתא אחר התפילה נענה הרב הקדוש מקאליסק ואמר לתלמידיו‪:‬‬ ‫“בואו ונלך לרב הקדוש מווטבסק שהוא צדיק אמיתי וירא שמיים אמיתי‪ ,‬וכל מעשיו לשם שמים‪”.‬‬ ‫והלכו כולם והביאו את החמין שלהם אל השולחן הטהור וסעדו יחד והיתה השמחה גדולה מאוד עד שבא‬ ‫המושל עם חרב בידו ובלבלם‪ .‬והרב הקדוש מרוז’ין אמר שכבר היה אז קרוב מאוד לגאולה‪ ,‬ונתלבש הס’ם‬ ‫בדמות המושל התורכי עם סכין שלופה בידו בכדי לבלבלם‪ .‬מרן זכרונו לברכה סיים‪:‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫“אומנם רושם מאז נשאר עד היום‪”.‬‬

‫ה‬ ‫כשנסתלק רב מנדיל לבית עולמו הלך רב מאברהם ללוותו עד לגדר בית החיים‪ ,‬שרב אברהם לא היה יכול‬ ‫להכנס לבית הקברות מחמת שהיה כהן‪ .‬שהניחו את רב מנדל בקברו אמר רב אברהם לאותם שהיו עימו‪:‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫“הגביהו אותי ואראה את בית חברי‪”.‬‬

‫‪ 3‬ר’ מרדכי מסלונים‪ ,‬מאמר מרדכי‪ ,‬כרך ב’ (ישראל זאב סלונים‪ :‬ירושלים‪ ,‬תשס”ז)‪ ,‬סימן ו’‪ ,‬ע’ קי”ב‪-‬קי”ג‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 4‬ר’ מרדכי מסלונים‪ ,‬מאמר מרדכי‪ ,‬כרך ב’ (ישראל זאב סלונים‪ :‬ירושלים‪ ,‬תשס”ז)‪ ,‬סימן ז’‪ ,‬ע’ קי”ג‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 5‬ש”י עגנון‪ ,‬תכריך של סיפורים‪( ,‬שוקן‪ :‬תל אביב‪ ,‬תשל”ד)‪ ,‬סימן ג’‪ ,‬ע’ קמ”ט‪-‬ק”נ‪ ,‬ראה שם ר’ מרדכי מסלונים‪ ,‬מאמר‬ ‫מרדכי‪ ,‬כרך ב’ (ישראל זאב סלונים‪ :‬ירושלים‪ ,‬תשס”ז)‪ ,‬סימן כ”ב‪ ,‬ע’ ס”ג‪.‬‬

‫ר’ אברהם מקאליסק בדרך עלייתו לארץ ישראל‬ ‫א‬ ‫לפני שעלה לארץ הקודש אמר [ר’ אברהם מקאליסק] לרבנית שבתנאי זה תוכל לעלות עמו‪ ,‬שתקבל‬ ‫על עצמה שאפילו תראה בבית הרב הקדוש מוויטבסק הרחבה גדולה ומנורת כסף יאירו על השולחן‪ ,‬ולה‬ ‫בביתה לא יהיה כי אם לחם צר לא תתרעם על זה‪ .‬ובהיותם בארץ ישראל היו זמנים שמרוב הדחקות לא‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫היה לה אפילו בגד ללבוש‪ ,‬וכיסתה עצמה בשני סדינים ועם זה יצאה לחוץ‪.‬‬

‫ב‬ ‫ר’ אברהם מקאליסק לא עלה לארץ ישראל עם ר’ מנדלי מוויטבסק‪ ,‬אלא שנה אחת אחריו עלה‪ .‬אומר‬ ‫היה ר’ אברהם‪:‬‬ ‫“כל אותה השנה מתייגע הייתי עם אשתי עד שידעתי בה‪ ,‬שאם היא רואה שרבי מנדלי כלי שופכין שלו‬ ‫של זהב הם ואנו אין לנו אפילו פת חרבה אל יעלה הרהור על לבה‪”.‬‬ ‫ואמר ר’ אברהם מקאליסק‪:‬‬ ‫“פעמים הרבה נפלו דברים ביני לבין רבי מנדיל‪ ,‬אבל מעולם לא לנתה עמי תרעומת עליו בלילה‪”.‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫ג‬ ‫כידוע שהצטרף הרב הקדוש מקאליסק לרב הקדוש מנחם מענדיל מוויטבסק בעלייתו לארץ ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫כשנתקרב הספינה ליעדה וערי ארץ ישראל נראו למרחוק‪ ,‬נתמלא הרב הקדוש מקאליסק‬ ‫בפחד גדול באומרו שרוב ענוותנותו‪:‬‬ ‫“היתכן שבריה שפלה כמוני תדרוך על עפר הארץ הקדוש?”‬ ‫ולא מצא את מקומו מרוב פחד וחדרת קודש והכריז בקול‪:‬‬ ‫“אינני מסוגל לרדת ההספינה להכנס לארץ ישראל‪ ,‬ואשאר בספינה עד שתחזור לחוץ לארץ ואחזור‬ ‫עימה לשם!”‬ ‫והבין הרב הקדוש מוויטבסק שאם הרב הקדוש מקאליסק אמר שלא ירד מהספינה יקיים את דבריו‬ ‫במלואם‪ ,‬וניסה הרב הקדוש מוויטבסק בכל זאת לשדלו ולדבר על ליבו שישנה את מחשבתו‪ ,‬וכשראה‬ ‫שאינו עולה בידו‪ ,‬בא בתחבולה ואמר לרב הקדוש מקאליסק‪:‬‬ ‫“היות וזכינו לראות את ארץ ישראל מרחוק עלינו לעשות סעודת הודיה על כך!”‬ ‫והסכים עמו הרב הקדוש מקאליסק‪ ,‬ועשו סעודה‪ ,‬בתוך הסעודה הגישו לפניהם יין משובח‪ ,‬והרב הקדוש‬ ‫‪ 1‬ר’ מרדכי מסלונים‪ ,‬מאמר מרדכי‪ ,‬כרך ב’ (ישראל זאב סלונים‪ :‬ירושלים‪ ,‬תשס”ז)‪ ,‬סימן ה’‪ ,‬ע’ קי”ב‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 2‬ש”י עגנון‪ ,‬תכריך של סיפורים‪( ,‬שוקן‪ :‬תל אביב‪ ,‬תשל”ד)‪ ,‬סימן ב’‪ ,‬ע’ קמ”ט‪-‬ק”נ‪.‬‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫“יַ ַחד ִׁש ְב ֵטי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל”—אזי‬ ‫נתהוה ונכלל ‘יחד’ כל הכוחות‬ ‫הנקראים ‘שבטי ישראל’‬ ‫ונתהוה ונתקיים הכל‪ .‬קיימינו‬ ‫לחיים טובים ולשלום במהרה‬ ‫בימינו אמן כן יהי רצון‪.‬‬ ‫סליק ספרא רבא ויקירא‪,‬‬ ‫מסבא קדישא‪ ,‬מרא דארעא‬ ‫דישראל‪ ,‬בוצינו דנהורא‪,‬‬ ‫עמיקא וטמירא‪ ,‬מוהר”ר‬ ‫אברהם כהן צדק זלה”ה‬ ‫אשר נקב בשמו ר’ אברהם‬ ‫קאליסקער זכותו יגן עלינו ועל‬ ‫ישראל אמן‪.‬‬

‫ואמונה‪ ,‬פרק ז’‬

‫אב‬

‫ת‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫דרך משל‪ :‬מי שהוא נקרא‬ ‫בשמו‪ ,‬כשהוא עומד לפני‪ ,‬אני‬ ‫רואהו ומכירו בדמותו וצלמו‬ ‫ואיבריו ותנועותיו‪ ,‬וכשאינו‬ ‫לפני‪ ,‬ואני שולח לקרוא אותו‪,‬‬ ‫כשאני מזכיר את שמו וא[ו]‬ ‫מר לאחד תקראו לי פלוני בן‬ ‫פלוני‪ ,‬כבר נכלל בשמו—מי‬ ‫הוא ומה תנועותיו ומה דמות‬ ‫פניו ואיבריו וגופו‪ ,‬הכל כאשר‬ ‫לכל נכלל בשמו‪.‬‬ ‫וממילא מובן המרחק בין‬ ‫גשמי גוף האדם—לרוחני‬ ‫שנכלל בשמו‪ ,‬כלומר‪ :‬אם היה‬ ‫רוצה לצייר דמות‪[ 228‬פלוני]‬

‫ובבראשית רבה י”ב‪ :‬ב’) בהבראם‬ ‫בה”א בראם‪ ,‬הוא היום הזה‪ ,‬ולזה‬ ‫אמרו הרת‪ .‬וטעם יעמיד במשפט כמו‬ ‫(משלי כ”ט‪ :‬ד’) מלך במשפט יעמיד‬ ‫ארץ‪ ,‬כי הוא מעמיד‪ .‬אם כבנים אם‬ ‫כעבדים אם תדיננו כבנים הרי אנו‬ ‫בניך נולדים בביתך כי מארצך יצאנו‬ ‫העמוסים מני הבטן העליון‪ ,‬רחמנו‬ ‫כרחם אב על בנים שנאמר (דברים‬ ‫י”ד‪ :‬א’) בנים אתם לה’ אלהיכם‪ ,‬וזה‬ ‫סוד מה שאמרו זכרם לברכה בפרק‬ ‫מפנין (שבת קכח‪ ,‬א) כל ישראל‬ ‫בני מלכים הם‪ ,‬אם כעבדים לעבדך‬ ‫באנו הנה לעשות את אשר צויתנו‬ ‫בתורתך ומזה אנו נקראים עבדים‬ ‫שנאמר (ויקרא כה‪ ,‬נה) כי לי בני‬ ‫ישראל עבדים‪ ,‬עבדיו בני אמתו אשר‬ ‫ילדה לו בביתו‪ ,‬ואין אנו כשאר עבדים‬ ‫המשמשים את הרב על מנת לקבל‬ ‫פרס אלא כאותם העובדים מאהבה‪,‬‬ ‫ולזה אמרו עינינו לך תלויות לא כשאר‬ ‫עבדים שנאמר עליהם (תהלים קכ”ג‪:‬‬ ‫ב’) כעיני עבדים אל יד אדוניהם‪ ,‬עד‬ ‫שתחננו ותוציא לאור משפטנו שנצא‬ ‫בדימוס כמו שיצא אדם הראשון‬ ‫שהוא היה סימן לנו ובזה יתקדש שמך‬ ‫עלינו‪ .‬ואומר שלש פעמים סדר זה‬ ‫כנגד מלכיות זכרונות ושופרות‪ ,‬וכנגד‬ ‫שלשה עולמות”‬ ‫‪228‬‬

‫דמות(ו)‬

‫לשלוחו‪ 229‬לדמותו כך וכך—‬ ‫היה צריך הרבה עניינים לזה‪,‬‬ ‫לאפוקי כשמזכירו בשמו פלוני‬ ‫ופלוני—תיכף מכירו בכל‬ ‫עניניו‪.‬‬ ‫וכן כשנבוא להתבונן ענין‬ ‫תמונת האותיות הנזכר‬ ‫בספר היצירה‪ ,‬והאותיות‬ ‫מה’ מוצאות הפה‪ 230‬כל אות‬ ‫משרשו‪ ,‬ואין נבחן כלל כי‬ ‫אם אחר צאתו ממבטא הפה‪,‬‬ ‫וקודם צאתו אין לו תפיסה‬ ‫כלל בשורשו לא בצורה ולא‬ ‫בדמיון‪ ,‬כי אם בהצטיירו היטב‬ ‫במחשבתו‪.‬‬ ‫ואף על פי כן אינו מובן למה‬ ‫ציורו [כך‪ ,‬כי אם כשיצטרף‬ ‫בדיבור פיו בהתגשמו נגד ציור‬ ‫המחשבה ונגד שורשו קודם‬ ‫‪231‬‬ ‫הגיעו למה הוא כך ציורו]‬ ‫וכך מבטאו‪ ,‬כמו התינוק‬ ‫כשמדבר—ואינו יודע למה‬ ‫הוא כך או‪ 232‬כך‪ ,‬כי אם כך ניתן‬ ‫כח בשורש שישמע וידבר כן‪.‬‬ ‫ולמשל התינוק‪ :‬כשאדם אחד‬ ‫עושה לו איזה תנועה‪ ,‬תיכף‬ ‫מתעורר התינוק להגיד לאביו‬ ‫מעשה האיש—בין אם עשה‬ ‫לו איזה הקנטה בין אם עשה לו‬ ‫‪229‬‬

‫(פלוני)‬

‫‪“ 230‬כ”ב אותיות יסוד‪ ,‬חקוקות‬ ‫בקול‪ ,‬חצובות ברוח‪ ,‬קבועות בפה‬ ‫בחמש מקומות‪ ,‬אחה”ע בומ”ף‬ ‫דטלנ”ת זסשר”ץ גיכ”ק (גרון וחיך זה‬ ‫ישפיל וזה ירום ושאר המוצאות הם‬ ‫באמצע לפיכך סדרם דרך האותיות‬ ‫הראשונות)‪( ”:‬ספר יצירה‪ ,‬ב’‪ :‬ו’)‪.‬‬ ‫‪231‬‬

‫(הוא כך)‬

‫‪232‬‬

‫(האות)‬

‫איזה נחת רוח או נתן לו איזה‬ ‫דבר‪ ,‬וכן מתעורר באביו—או‬ ‫להיטיב לאותו אם או להרע לו‪.‬‬ ‫הוא—”ה ַרת‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫“הּיֹום”‬ ‫והנה זה ַ‬ ‫עֹולָ ם”‪ ,‬בחינת ‘הריון’—‬ ‫שנתהוה מטפה אחת בריה‬ ‫שלימה ברמ”ח איברים ושס”ה‬ ‫גידים בכל כוחותיו ותנועותיו‪,‬‬ ‫מחמת כח הטיפה שנכללו בה‬ ‫כל כוחות האב והאם‪ ,‬ונמשך‬ ‫מזה להתכלל להחקק בטיפה‬ ‫כל הנזכר לעיל‪.‬‬ ‫וכן על דרך זה‪“ :‬זה היום‬ ‫תחילת מעשיך”‪ 233,‬שחוזר‬ ‫הכל לשרשו‪ ,‬ונמשך משם כל‬ ‫הכוחות בנקודה אחת‪ ,‬להיות‬ ‫נחקק בה כל הויות וקיום‬ ‫העולמות והתהוות כל השנה‬ ‫בכלל ובפרט הכל נחקק בה‪,‬‬ ‫וזהו בחינת ‘כתיבה’—לשון‬ ‫חקיקה‪ ,‬שנחקק הכל מכח‬ ‫הראשית‪.‬‬ ‫יׁשרּון ֶמלֶ ְך”‪,‬‬ ‫וזהו‪“ :‬וַ יְ ִהי ִב ֻ‬ ‫ישראל‪,‬‬ ‫יׁשרּון”—נקרא‬ ‫“ב ֻ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫“מלֶ ְך”—הוא מלכות‪ ,‬נקודה‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫תתאה הכוללת הכל ומולכת‬ ‫אׁשי‬ ‫“ּב ִה ְת ַא ֵּסף ָר ֵ‬ ‫בכל‪ ,‬על ידי‪ְ :‬‬ ‫עָ ם”—לשון ‘ראשית’ ולשון‬ ‫‘ראש’‪.‬‬ ‫שעל זה נקרא‪‘ :‬ראש השנה’‪,‬‬ ‫שבנקודה זו נכלל כל כוחות‬ ‫התהוות כל השנה‪ ,‬על יד יסוד‬ ‫הנקרא ראשית‪ ,‬בהכלל כל‬ ‫‪234‬‬ ‫דרגין תתאין הנקרא ‘עם’‪.‬‬

‫‪233‬‬

‫פסיקתא דרב כהנא כ”ג‪ :‬א’‬

‫‪“ 234‬עם” מלשון “עוממות”‪ ,‬רבי‬ ‫שניאור זלצן מליאדי‪ ,‬שער היחוד‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫שעה—בודאי היה עושה דין‬ ‫ומשפט בהמדבר הנזכר לעיל‪,‬‬ ‫כידוע זה בטבע הגשמי—כמו‬ ‫שאנו רואין בזה העולם אהבת‬ ‫אב לבנו‪.‬‬

‫שאינו בשלימות המדות‪ ,‬אף‬ ‫על פי כן תתלהב אש ה’אהבה‬ ‫רבה’ בלי מעלות‪ ,‬כי אם בדרך‬ ‫סגולה כמו שפירשו המפרשים‬ ‫‪222‬‬ ‫על פסוק‪”:‬וִ ְהיִ ֶיתם לִ י ְסגֻ ּלָ ה”‪.‬‬

‫וכן כביכול באהבת אבינו מלכנו‬ ‫אב לכל נוצר‪ ,‬באהבתו אותם‬ ‫לעם קרובו ישראל‪ ,‬שקראם‬ ‫ו”בנִ ים לַ ָּמקֹום”—‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫קדושים‬ ‫‪219‬‬ ‫נֹודעַ ת לָ ֶהם”‬ ‫“ח ָּבה יְ ֵת ָרה ַ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ומשם השתלשלות אהבה אחת‬ ‫מאלף אלפים הבדלות וכו’ לזה‬ ‫העולם כביכול‪ ,‬מכל שכן וכל‬ ‫שכן וכו’‪ ,‬ואין להאריך בזה‬ ‫שממילא מובן‪.‬‬

‫ומזה יתמלאו כל המדות‬ ‫בחסדים מגולים במלואם‬ ‫אהבה‬ ‫וטובם—מגודל‬ ‫בתענוגים‪ ,‬וממילא יתבטלו כל‬ ‫המסטינים ומקטריגים כמוץ‬ ‫אשר תדפנו רוח—והיית רק‬ ‫למעלה‪.‬‬

‫והנה על פי זה נפרש‬ ‫“את יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֶה ֱא ַמ ְר ָּת‬ ‫הפסוק‪ֶ :‬‬ ‫ַהּיֹום”‪—220‬לשון ‘אהבה’ כמו‬ ‫שפירש רבי שלמה יצחקי‬ ‫זכרונו לחיי העולם הבא‪ ,‬וגם‬ ‫‘אחדות’—כפירוש‬ ‫לשון‬ ‫התרגום‪ ,‬וכמאמר חכמינו‬ ‫זכרונם לברכה‪“ :‬אתם עשיתוני‬ ‫חטיבה אחת בעולם”‪ 221.‬ועל‬ ‫ידי זה‪“ :‬וַ יהֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֶה ֱא ִמ ְירָך ַהּיֹום‬ ‫לִ ְהיֹות לֹו לְ עַ ם ְסגֻ ּלָ ה”—הגם‬

‫אֹומר‪ָ ,‬ח ִביב ָא ָדם‬ ‫‪“ 219‬הּוא ָהיָ ה ֵ‬ ‫נֹוד ַעת לֹו‬ ‫ֶׁשּנִ ְב ָרא ְבצֶ לֶ ם‪ִ .‬ח ָּבה יְ ֵת ָרה ַ‬ ‫ֶׁשּנִ ְב ָרא ְבצֶ לֶ ם‪ֶׁ ,‬שּנֶ ֱא ַמר (בראשית‬ ‫ֹלהים ָע ָׂשה ֶאת ָה ָא ָדם‪.‬‬ ‫ט’)‪ּ ,‬כִ י ְּבצֶ לֶ ם ֱא ִ‬ ‫ֲח ִב ִיבין יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֶׁשּנִ ְק ְראּו ָבנִ ים לַ ָּמקֹום‪.‬‬ ‫נֹוד ַעת לָ ֶהם ֶׁשּנִ ְק ְראּו ָבנִ ים‬ ‫ִח ָּבה יְ ֵת ָרה ַ‬ ‫לַ ָּמקֹום‪ֶׁ ,‬שּנֶ ֱא ַמר (דברים י”ד)‪ָּ ,‬בנִ ים‬ ‫ֹלהיכֶ ם‪ֲ .‬ח ִב ִיבין יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‪,‬‬ ‫ַא ֶּתם לַ ה’ ֱא ֵ‬ ‫ֶׁשּנִ ַּתן לָ ֶהם ּכְ לִ י ֶח ְמ ָּדה‪ִ .‬ח ָּבה יְ ֵת ָרה‬ ‫נֹוד ַעת לָ ֶהם ֶׁשּנִ ַּתן לָ ֶהם ּכְ לִ י ֶח ְמ ָּדה ֶׁשּבֹו‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫נִ ְב ָרא ָהעֹולָ ם‪ֶׁ ,‬שּנֶ ֱא ַמר (משלי ד’)‪ּ ,‬כִ י‬ ‫ּתֹור ִתי ַאל ַּת ֲעזֹבּו‪:‬‬ ‫לֶ ַקח טֹוב נָ ַת ִּתי לָ כֶ ם‪ָ ,‬‬ ‫“ (משנה אבות ג’‪ :‬י”ד)‬

‫וזהו‪ּ“ :‬ולְ ִת ְּתָך עֶ לְ יֹון עַ ל ּכָ ל”‬ ‫כמו שאנו מצפים לזה בכל יום‬ ‫ויום לביאת משיחנו במהרה‬ ‫בימינו‪ ,‬אמן כן יהי רצון‪,‬‬ ‫ולגאלנו גאולת עולם במהרה‬ ‫בימינו אמן כן יהי רצון‪.‬‬ ‫‪223‬‬

‫דרוש לשבת תשובה‪/‬ראש‬ ‫השנה‬ ‫עמד השואל ושאל‪“ :‬וַ יְ ִהי‬ ‫אׁשי‬ ‫יׁשרּון ֶמלֶ ְך ְּב ִה ְת ַא ֵּסף ָר ֵ‬ ‫ִב ֻ‬ ‫‪224‬‬ ‫עָ ם יַ ַחד ִׁש ְב ֵטי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‪”:‬‬ ‫פתח הרב להבין מה הוא‪:‬‬ ‫“הּיֹום ֲה ַרת עֹולָ ם”‪ 225,‬על‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫‪“ 222‬וְ עַ ָּתה ִאם ָׁשמֹועַ ִּת ְׁש ְמעּו ְּבקֹלִ י‬ ‫ּוׁש ַמ ְר ֶּתם ֶאת ְּב ִר ִיתי וִ ְהיִ ֶיתם לִ י ְסגֻ ּלָ ה‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ִמּכָ ל ָהעַ ִּמים ּכִ י לִ י ּכָ ל ָה ָא ֶרץ‪( ”:‬שמות‬ ‫י”ט‪ :‬ה’)‪ .‬עיין שם פירוש הרמב”ן‬ ‫והאורח החיים‪.‬‬ ‫‪223‬‬

‫דברים כ”ו‪ :‬י”ז‪-‬י”ט‬

‫‪220‬‬

‫דברים כ”ו‪ :‬י”ז‪-‬י”ט‬

‫‪224‬‬

‫דברים ל”ג‪ :‬ה’‬

‫‪221‬‬

‫בבלי ברכות ו’ ע”א‬

‫‪225‬‬

‫תפילת מוסף לראש השנה‬

‫ש‬

‫דא הנזכר בפרי עץ חיים‬ ‫באריכות‪ 226.‬הנה מבואר‬ ‫וידוע ההבדל והמרחק בין‬ ‫עולם הגשמי להרוחני בהמשל‬ ‫‪227‬‬ ‫שלשה משלים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 226‬ר’ חיים ווטל‪ ,‬פרי עץ חיים‪,‬שער‬ ‫השופר‪ :‬פרק ה’‪“ :‬ומה שאנו אומרים‬ ‫בר”ה היום הרת עולם‪ ,‬ונחלקו רז”ל‬ ‫אם בתשרי נברא העולם אם בניסן‪,‬‬ ‫ואיך יחלקו במציאות במחלוקת זה‪,‬‬ ‫ואיך יצדק ע”ז אלו ואלו דברי אלהים‬ ‫חיים‪ .‬והתירוץ לזה‪ ,‬כי יש עיבור‬ ‫ולידה‪ ,‬ומר אמר חדא ומ”א חדא‬ ‫ולא פליגי‪ .‬כי בתשרי היה העיבור‪ ,‬וכן‬ ‫אותיות תשרי‪ ,‬והם אותיות ראשית‪.‬‬ ‫ובניסן היתה הלידה‪ ,‬שצריך נסים‬ ‫לצאת מן הבטן בעת לידתה‪ ,‬וכן מורה‬ ‫ניסן ענין נס‪ ,‬ובו היתה הגאולה בנס‪.‬‬ ‫וידוע כי כל יציאת מצרים הוזכרה‬ ‫בלשון לידה‪ ,‬ואעבור עליך ואראך‬ ‫מתבוססת בדמייך‪ .‬וכן אמר כאן‪ ,‬היום‬ ‫הרת עולם לשון הריון‪ ,‬ולא אמר נברא‬ ‫העולם‪ ,‬כי בתשרי היה הריון‪”:‬‬ ‫‪ 227‬כמו ר’ מאיר ן’ גבאי‪ ,‬תולעת‬ ‫“הּיֹום ֲה ַרת‬ ‫יעקב‪ ,‬תפילת מוסף‪ַ :‬‬ ‫עֹולָ ם‪ ”.‬אמר זה על אדם הראשון‬ ‫שנברא ביום זה ובו נגמר הריונו של‬ ‫עולם‪ ,‬והוא היה תכלית הבריאה‬ ‫וכאלו ביום זה נתחדש העולם בכללו‪,‬‬ ‫ואתיא כרבי אליעזר כדאמרינן בפרקא‬ ‫קמא דראש השנה (פ”ג כז‪ ,‬א בשינוי)‬ ‫כמאן מצלינן האידנא זה היום תחלת‬ ‫מעשיך כרבי אליעזר דאמר בחמשה‬ ‫ועשרים באלול נברא העולם וביום‬ ‫ששי שהוא ראש השנה נברא אדם‬ ‫הראשון‪ ,‬ובו ביום נדון ויצא בדימוס‪,‬‬ ‫פירוש חפשי מן העונות‪ ,‬ולפיכך‬ ‫הוקבע היום הזה יום משפט לכל‬ ‫הדורות‪ .‬כדאמרינן בפסיקתא (פמ”ו‪.‬‬ ‫ובויקרא רבה כ”ט‪ :‬א’) בי”א נדון‬ ‫ובי”ב יצא בדימוס‪ ,‬אמר הקב”ה‬ ‫לאדם הראשון אתה סימן לבניך‬ ‫כשם שעמדת לפני בדין ביום זה‬ ‫ויצאת בדימוס‪ ,‬כן עתידין בניך להיות‬ ‫עומדין לפני בדין ויוצאין בדימוס‪ .‬וזהו‬ ‫שאמר היום יעמיד במשפט כל יצורי‬ ‫עולם‪ .‬ועל דרך האמת ירמוז לנו סוד‬ ‫הבריאה‪ ,‬וכמו שאמרו זכרונם לברכה‬ ‫(בבלי מנחות כ”ט ע”ב) בה”א‬ ‫נברא העולם הזה‪ ,‬וכן אמרו (שם‪,‬‬

‫ר‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫וזהו‪“ :‬אמרו לפני מלכויות‬ ‫כדי שתמליכוני עליכם”‪,‬‬ ‫וממליך עליו עול מלכות שמים‬ ‫בכל עניניו ועבודתו—לשמו‬ ‫יתברך‪ ,‬והכל יכול להיות על‬ ‫ידי התקשרות לנקודה עילאה‬ ‫כנזכר לעיל‪ ,‬לפנות עצמו מכל‬ ‫עניניו מזה העולם לגמרי‪.‬‬ ‫‪212‬‬

‫ֵמ ַאיִ ן‬ ‫“וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה‬ ‫וזה‪:‬‬ ‫ִּת ָּמצֵ א”‪—213‬שהוא על ידי‬ ‫“איִ ן” —‬ ‫מדת צמצום הנקרא ַ‬ ‫בהצמצם עצמו מכל מחשבותיו‬ ‫[למחשבה]‪ 214‬עילאה‪ ,‬אחדות‬ ‫הפשוט‪.‬‬ ‫ובהתקשרותו באמת לדבקה‬ ‫בו יתברך—מחמת תענוג‬ ‫העליון בהתענג על הו’יה‪,‬‬ ‫כביכול מתעורר תענוג השם‬ ‫יתברך‪ ,‬וממשיך עליו בהירות‬ ‫עליון מחי החיים—ונמתקין כל‬ ‫הדינין‪.‬‬ ‫כביכול כמשל‪ :‬אב ובן‪ ,‬שהאב‬ ‫שלם בכל מדותיו שלימות‬ ‫העליון‪ ,‬והבן לפי מדריגתו‬ ‫שאינו שלם עדיין‪.‬‬ ‫והנה אם האב בא אצל הבן‪,‬‬ ‫הגם שהבן מתענג מאוד‬ ‫מביאת אביו והאב מתענג‬ ‫[עצמו]‪ 215‬מראית בנו יקירו‪,‬‬ ‫אף על פי כן מחמת שהבן‬ ‫אינו שלם במדותיו‪ ,‬שאין דעתו‬ ‫מיושבת איך לקבל פני אביו—‬ ‫‪212‬‬

‫בבלי ראש השנה ט”ז ע”א‬

‫‪“ 213‬וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה ֵמ ַאיִ ן ִּת ָּמצֵ א וְ ֵאי זֶ ה‬ ‫ְמקֹום ִּבי” (איוב כ”ח‪ :‬י”ב)‪,‬‬ ‫‪214‬‬

‫(ומחשבה)‬

‫‪215‬‬

‫(עמו)‬

‫בחשק התלהבות אהבה כראוי‬ ‫לפי אהבת האב‪ ,‬וזה אינו‬ ‫אהבה שלימה‪ ,‬וזה נקרא‪:‬‬ ‫עולם”—כאהבה‬ ‫“אהבת‬ ‫הטבעית‪ ,‬שאף על פי כן גדלה‬ ‫האהבה בתענוגים—האב עם‬ ‫הבן שלו והבן עם אביו‪.‬‬ ‫והנה אם הבן בא אצל האב‪,‬‬ ‫מחמת שהאב שלם במדותיו‬ ‫ובוער בו אש האהבה מביאת‬ ‫בנו אצלו—ומתעורר האהבה‬ ‫בבנו בתענוג נפלא‪ ,‬זה‪ 216‬נקרא‬ ‫‪217‬‬ ‫“אהבה רבה”‪.‬‬ ‫ומחמת גודל אהבת אב אל‬ ‫בנו בתענוגים—מביאתו אצלו‬ ‫ממרחק‪ ,‬כביכול מתרחב דעתו‬ ‫של אביו‪ ,‬ובאותה שעה מה‬ ‫ששואל ממנו לא ימנע ממנו‬ ‫טובו‪ ,‬ואם היה שואל דבר זה‬ ‫בזמן אחר—אולי היה בשקלא‬ ‫וטריא אם למלאות שאלתו‬ ‫או לא‪ ,‬אך עתה בשעת גודל‬ ‫תענוגו מאהבת בנו—נתעורר‬ ‫בו מדת ‘אהבת חסד’ להטיב‬ ‫לכל‪ ,‬וזה נקרא הולדה‪ ,‬דהיינו‪:‬‬ ‫שמזה התענוג ‘נולד’ מדה זו—‬ ‫רב חסד‪ ,‬והנמשל ממילא מובן‪.‬‬ ‫‪216‬‬

‫(ו)זה‬

‫‪ 217‬עיין שם בר’ שניאור זלמן‬ ‫מליאדי‪ ,‬התניא א‪ :‬מ”ד— “ הסתר‬ ‫והעלם גדול בנפשות כל בית ישראל‬ ‫ולהוציא אהבה זו המסותרת מההעלם‬ ‫וההסתר אל הגילוי להיות בהתגלות‬ ‫לבו ומוחו לא נפלאת ולא רחוקה‬ ‫היא אלא קרוב הדבר מאד בפיך‬ ‫ובלבבך דהיינו להיות רגיל על לשונו‬ ‫וקולו לעורר כוונת לבו ומוחו להעמיק‬ ‫מחשבתו בחיי החיים א”ס ב”ה כי‬ ‫הוא אבינו ממש האמיתי ומקור חיינו‬ ‫ולעורר אליו האהבה כאהבת הבן אל‬ ‫האב‪ .‬וכשירגיל עצמו כן תמיד הרי‬ ‫ההרגל נעשה טבע‪”.‬‬

‫ולזה כשהאדם מתקשר עצמו‬ ‫לנקודה עילאה לדבקה בו‬ ‫יתברך‪ ,‬הוא כביכול כביאת‬ ‫הבן אצל האב‪ ,‬הגם שהבן‬ ‫אינו שלם במדותיו‪ ,‬אבל‬ ‫האב כביכול שלם בכל הוא‪,‬‬ ‫ומתענוגו מביאת בנו אצלו‬ ‫מתעורר האהבה בתענוגים‬ ‫אהבה רבה‪ ,‬ואז יכול להמשיך‬ ‫כל טוב מאביו מרוב האהבה‪.‬‬ ‫בּוׁשּה‬ ‫ולפי זה נוכל לומר‪“ :‬לְ ֵ‬ ‫אׁשּה ּכַ עֲ ַמר‬ ‫ּוׂשעַ ר ֵר ֵ‬ ‫ּכִ ְתלַ ג ִחּוָ ר ְ‬ ‫‪218‬‬ ‫נְ ֵקא‪”.‬‬ ‫דהיינו‪ :‬אם האדם מצמצם‬ ‫עצמו ומחשבתו לשער רישיה‪,‬‬ ‫שהוא הקדש ברוך הוא‬ ‫כביכול—ראשית כל המחיה‬ ‫כל‪ ,‬והנה לפי מיעוט השגתו‬ ‫ומיעוט שלימותו‪ ,‬על כל‬ ‫פנים משלימות האב כביכול‬ ‫שהוא “ּכַ ֲע ַמר נְ ֵקא” בשלימות‬ ‫המדות‪ ,‬יכול להמשיך מזה על‬ ‫עצמו לבוש “ּכִ ְתלַ ג ִחּוָ ר” על‬ ‫כל איבריו ומדותיו—להמתיק‬ ‫ולתקן הכל שיהיה נכון וברור‬ ‫ונקי “ּכִ ְתלַ ג ִחּוָ ר” דרך משל‪,‬‬ ‫וממילא מתבטלים כל הסטרא‬ ‫אחרא מה שהוא לנגדו יתברך‪.‬‬ ‫כביכול‪ ,‬כמשל הנזכר לעיל‪:‬‬ ‫מאהבת האב לבנו ממרחק—‬ ‫מרוב התענוג שנולד באהבת‬ ‫האב רב חסד‪ ,‬ולמלאות הכל‬ ‫במלואו וטובו‪ ,‬ואם היה בא‬ ‫אחד לדבר סרה על בנו באותה‬ ‫“חזֵ ה ֲהוֵ ית עַ ד ִּדי כָ ְר ָסוָ ן ְר ִמיו‬ ‫‪ָ 218‬‬ ‫בּוׁשּה ּכִ ְתלַ ג ִחּוָ ר‬ ‫יֹומין יְ ִתב לְ ֵ‬ ‫וְ עַ ִּתיק ִ‬ ‫אׁשּה ּכַ עֲ ַמר נְ ֵקא ּכָ ְר ְסיֵ ּה‬ ‫ּוׂשעַ ר ֵר ֵ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ּלֹוהי נּור ָּדלִ ק‪”:‬‬ ‫ְׁש ִב ִיבין ִּדי נּור ּגַ לְ ּגִ ִ‬ ‫(דניאל ז’‪ :‬ט’)‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫דהיינו כשתגיע לבחינת ‘ידיעת’‬ ‫אור הבהירות שנקראת “ּיֹום‪,‬‬ ‫וַ ֲה ֵׁשב ָֹת ֶאל לְ ָב ֶבָך” —ובה הלב‬ ‫מבין גדולת הבורא ברוך הוא‬ ‫וברוך שמו עד מקום השגת‬ ‫שכלו ומה שהוא אצלו בלתי‬ ‫מושג‪.‬‬ ‫וכשיזכה ביום שני יהיה זה‬ ‫הבלתי מושג—של אתמול‬ ‫למושג‪ ,‬ויבחין בחינת הארה‬ ‫יותר עליונה‪ ,‬ואלה הם מ”ט‬ ‫שערי בינה ודי למבינים‪.‬‬ ‫ויש מי שנופל חס ושלום‬ ‫ממדריגות הקודמים‪ ,‬וצריך‬ ‫לחזור ולחפש על השגתו אשר‬ ‫נאבדה ממנו‪.‬‬ ‫ומשה רבינו עליו השלום שהוא‬ ‫היה אדון הנביאים ומובחר‬ ‫האנושי—זכה לכולם‪ ,‬כי‬ ‫אם שער החמשי נשאר אצל‬ ‫בבחינת נקודה שאינו מושג—‬ ‫כמו שכתוב‪“ :‬וַ ְּת ַח ְּס ֵרהּו ְּמעַ ט‬ ‫‪205‬‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים‪”.‬‬ ‫ֵמ ֱאל ִ‬

‫פרשת כי תבא‬ ‫“את יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֶה ֱא ַמ ְר ָּת ַהּיֹום‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫ַהּיֹום‬ ‫ֶה ֱא ִמ ְירָך‬ ‫‪...‬וַ יהֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫לִ ְהיֹות לֹו לְ עַ ם ְסגֻ ּלָ ה‪ּ...‬ולְ ִת ְּתָך‬ ‫‪206‬‬ ‫עֶ לְ יֹון”‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים וְ כָ בֹוד‬ ‫‪“ 205‬וַ ְּת ַח ְּס ֵרהּו ְּמ ַעט ֵמ ֱאל ִ‬ ‫וְ ָה ָדר ְּת ַע ְּט ֵרהּו‪( ”:‬תהלים ח’‪ :‬ו’)‪ ,‬ועיין‬ ‫שם בבלי ראש השנה כ”א ע”ב‪.‬‬ ‫‪“ 206‬וַ יהֹוָ ה ֶה ֱא ִמ ְירָך ַהּיֹום לִ ְהיֹות לֹו‬ ‫לְ עַ ם ְסגֻ ּלָ ה ּכַ ֲא ֶׁשר ִּד ֶּבר לָ ְך וְ לִ ְׁשמֹר ּכָ ל‬

‫פתח הרב‪ :‬דהנה כלל גדול‬ ‫בעבודת הבורא ברוך הוא‬ ‫וברוך שמו‪ ,‬להיות אינש ידע‬ ‫בנפשו תמיד‪ :‬פתיחות גופו‬ ‫העב והחומר [הגס] בכל‬ ‫מעשיו ועלילות מצעדי גבר‪.‬‬ ‫וכאשר ישים לבו לזה—‬ ‫לידע הדברים על בוריין מכל‬ ‫פתיחותו‪ ,‬לעומת זה ישער‬ ‫בנפשו גדולת הבורא [שברא]‬ ‫הכל יש מאין‪ ,‬ולמה היה תכלית‬ ‫בריאתו בזה העולם ומה יהיה‬ ‫בסופו כמאמר חכמינו זכרונם‬ ‫לׁשה‬ ‫“ה ְס ַּתּכֵ ל ִּב ְׁש ָ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫לברכה‪:‬‬ ‫ְד ָב ִרים וְ ֵאין ַא ָּתה ָבא”‪—207‬זהו‬ ‫בפשיטות‪.‬‬ ‫אך להבין זה בדעת השכל‪,‬‬ ‫דהנה באמת כשמסתכל בזה‬ ‫מי בראו וכו’‪ ,‬כלומר‪ :‬כמה‬ ‫צמצומים צמצם הקדוש ברוך‬ ‫הוא כביכול—בבריאתו כל‬ ‫ברואי עולם הגשמי‪ ,‬ושם בהם‬ ‫חיות רוחני מעולם העליון חיות‬ ‫אלהי ממעל‪ ,‬כמה צמצומים היו‬ ‫עד שנשתלשל בזה העולם—‬ ‫להיות הנשמה סובלת בגוף‬ ‫החומרי הזה להיות מאין יש‪.‬‬

‫ִמצְ ָֹותיו‪ּ :‬ולְ ִת ְּתָך עֶ לְ יֹון עַ ל ּכָ ל ַהּגֹויִ ם‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר עָ ָׂשה לִ ְת ִהּלָ ה ּולְ ֵׁשם ּולְ ִת ְפ ָא ֶרת‬ ‫ֹלהיָך ּכַ ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫וְ לִ ְהי ְֹתָך עַ ם ָקדׁש לַ יהֹוָ ה ֱא ֶ‬ ‫ִּד ֵּבר‪( ”:‬דברים כ”ו‪ :‬י”ז‪-‬י”ט)‬ ‫אֹומר‪,‬‬ ‫‪“ 207‬עֲ ַק ְביָ א ֶבן ַמ ֲהלַ לְ ֵאל ֵ‬ ‫לׁשה ְד ָב ִרים וְ ֵאין ַא ָּתה ָבא‬ ‫ִה ְס ַּתּכֵ ל ִּב ְׁש ָ‬ ‫את‪ּ ,‬ולְ ָאן ַא ָּתה‬ ‫לִ ֵידי עֲ ֵב ָרה‪ַּ .‬דע‪ֵ ,‬מ ַאיִ ן ָּב ָ‬ ‫הֹולֵ ְך‪ ,‬וְ לִ ְפנֵ י ִמי ַא ָּתה עָ ִתיד לִ ֵּתן ִּדין‬ ‫רּוחה‪,‬‬ ‫את‪ִ ,‬מ ִּט ָּפה ְס ָ‬ ‫וְ ֶח ְׁשּבֹון‪ֵ .‬מ ַאיִ ן ָּב ָ‬ ‫ּולְ ָאן ַא ָּתה הֹולֵ ְך‪ ,‬לִ ְמקֹום עָ ָפר ִר ָּמה‬ ‫וְ תֹולֵ עָ ה‪ .‬וְ לִ ְפנֵ י ִמי ַא ָּתה עָ ִתיד לִ ֵּתן‬ ‫ִּדין וְ ֶח ְׁשּבֹון‪ ,‬לִ ְפנֵ י ֶמלֶ ְך ַמלְ כֵ י ַה ְּמלָ כִ ים‬ ‫ַה ָּקדֹוׁש ָּברּוְך הּוא‪( ”:‬משנה אבות‬ ‫פרק ג’‪ :‬א’)‬

‫ק‬

‫וכן צריך האדם להתנהג בעצמו‬ ‫בתורתו ועבודתו לצמצם את‬ ‫עצמו וכל מחשבותיו מגשמיותו‬ ‫לקשר עצמו לנקודה [ראשונה‬ ‫שהיא חכמה]‪ 208‬ראשית‬ ‫כל המחיה כל החיים של‬ ‫אׁשית‬ ‫“ר ִ‬ ‫החיים‪ ,‬זהו הנקרא‪ֵ :‬‬ ‫‪209‬‬ ‫—ו”ה ָחכְ ָמה ְּת ַחּיֶ ה‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ָחכְ ָמה”‬ ‫‪210‬‬ ‫ְבעָ לֶ ָיה” ומשם ימשוך חיות‬ ‫הקדושה אל כל איבריו להיותם‬ ‫קשורים למעלה‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו ראשית‪ ,‬שהיא נקודה‬ ‫קדישא—שהיא אות יו”ד‬ ‫קטנה שבאותיות הקדושים‬ ‫הנקרא בספרים על שם‬ ‫‪211‬‬ ‫חכמה‪.‬‬ ‫והנה מילוי היו”ד—הוא ו”ד‪,‬‬ ‫דהיינו‪ :‬שעל ידי התקשרות‬ ‫עילאה—ראשית‬ ‫לנקודה‬ ‫חכמה‪ ,‬יכול להמשיך אחר כך‬ ‫חיות העליון על כל המדות—‬ ‫עד מדת מלכות חכמה תתאה‪,‬‬ ‫וזהו‪ :‬וא”ו—לשון המשכה‪ ,‬עד‬ ‫דל”ת [שהוא מלכות]‪ ,‬מריש‬ ‫דרגין עד סוף דרגין‪.‬‬ ‫ובזה יבוא אל שער המלך—‬ ‫בהתקשרות כל האיברים‬ ‫לנקודה עליונה חי החיים‪,‬‬ ‫ולהמשיך המשכה זו על כל‬ ‫המדות—עד דל”ת מדת‬ ‫מלכות כנזכר לעיל‪.‬‬

‫‪208‬‬

‫(א’)‬

‫אׁשית ָחכְ ָמה ְקנֵ ה ָחכְ ָמה ְּובכָ ל‬ ‫“ר ִ‬ ‫‪ֵ 209‬‬ ‫ִקנְ יָ נְ ָך ְקנֵ ה ִבינָ ה‪( ”:‬משלי ד’‪ :‬ז’)‬ ‫‪ּ“ 210‬כִ י ְּבצֵ ל ַה ָחכְ ָמה ְּבצֵ ל ַהּכָ ֶסף‬ ‫וְ יִ ְתרֹון ַּדעַ ת ַה ָחכְ ָמה ְּת ַחּיֶ ה ְבעָ לֶ ָיה‪”:‬‬ ‫(קהלת ז’‪ :‬י”ב)‬ ‫‪211‬‬

‫תיקוני זהר‪ ,‬תיקון י”ח‪ :‬ל”ב ע”א‬

‫צ‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫“ּומ ַא ִּס ְפכֶ ם”—שהוא הצמצום‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫עצמו בהשתלשלות מעולם‬ ‫לעולם כנזכר לעיל‪ ,‬כדי שיהיה‬ ‫סיבות בגוף ובעולם השפל הזה‪,‬‬ ‫בקיום והעמדה בתורה ועבודה‬ ‫ועשיית המצות מעשיות‪,‬‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל”—שהיא‬ ‫“אל ֵ‬ ‫הוא ֱ‬ ‫מדת הצמצום כנזכר לעיל‪.‬‬ ‫ובזה יתקשרו מדת היראה עם‬ ‫מדת אהבה—ויגיעו לבחינת‬ ‫ישראל‪ ,‬כן נזכה לביאת הגואל‬ ‫במהרה בימינו אמן‪.‬‬

‫הפטרת כי תצא‬ ‫“ּכִ י ֶה ָה ִרים יָ מּוׁשּו וְ ַהּגְ ָבעֹות‬ ‫מּוטינָ ה וְ ַח ְס ִּדי ֵמ ִא ֵּתְך ל ֹא‬ ‫ְּת ֶ‬ ‫לֹומי ל ֹא ָתמּוט‬ ‫יָ מּוׁש ְּוב ִרית ְׁש ִ‬ ‫‪197‬‬ ‫ָא ַמר ְמ ַר ֲח ֵמְך יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‪”:‬‬ ‫פתח הרב‪ ,‬דהנה ידוע כלל‬ ‫האמור בספרים‪“ :‬תכלית‬ ‫הידיעה שלא נדע”‪ 198,‬והנה‬ ‫‪199‬‬ ‫לא דברה תורה וכו’ [כמו]‬ ‫עם הארץ שידמה בדעת [שבא‬ ‫ל]כלל הנזכר לעיל‪ ,‬כי מאוד‬ ‫צריך האדם ליגע עצמו בזה יום‬ ‫ולילה לבקש ולמצוא ידיעה זו‪.‬‬

‫נ”ב‪:‬יב)‬ ‫‪197‬‬

‫ישעיהו נ”ד‪ :‬י’‬

‫‪ 198‬הבעש”ט‪ ,‬כתר שם טוב השלם‬ ‫(מו”ל קהת‪ :‬נ”י‪ ,‬תשס”ד)‪ ,‬ג’‪:‬‬ ‫ע”ז’‪-‬ח’‪.‬‬ ‫‪199‬‬

‫(כי מי)‬

‫“מה ּלְ ַמעְ לָ ה”‬ ‫כמאמר‪ :‬דע ַ‬ ‫ממך‪ 200 ,‬והוא כמו ענין הגבוה‬ ‫ממנו שלא נוכל להשיגו‪,‬‬ ‫וכשאדם מתמיד בעבודת הו’יה‬ ‫מיום ליום—להוסיף לו עבודה‬ ‫חדשים לבקרים בעזר העליון‪,‬‬ ‫‪201‬‬ ‫מהעלם אל הגילוי‪ ,‬מה‬ ‫שנישג לו דקה מן הדקה‪ ,‬השגה‬ ‫במחשבה עליונה בהירות זך‬ ‫ותענוג נפלא‪ ,‬מה שאינו מושג‬ ‫בגדר השגה בהתגלות דעתו‪,‬‬ ‫שיוכל להורידה לבחינת טעם‬ ‫ומהטעם לבחינת דיבור‪.‬‬ ‫כמשל‪[ :‬מי] שלומד‪ ,‬וטועם‬ ‫טעם להעמיק בנגלה—בגמרא‬ ‫ותוספות ופוסקים ‪ ,‬יש פעמים‬ ‫מגודל עומק מחשבתו בעיון‬ ‫נמרץ‪ ,‬עד שנתחדש איזה שכל‬ ‫במוחו‪ ,‬מרגיש תיכף תענוג גדול‬ ‫למאוד‪ ,‬ועדיין השכל בבהירות‬ ‫מחשבתו—שאינו יכול עדיין‬ ‫להביאו לבחינת הדיבור‪ ,‬יכול‬ ‫להרגיש בעצמו—עד היכן‬ ‫השיגה דעתו מתענוג העליון‪,‬‬ ‫עד שמייגע עצמו לסבב בכמה‬ ‫דיבורים—עד שיוציאו מהעלם‬ ‫‪202‬‬ ‫אל הגילוי‪.‬‬ ‫וכשעוזר לו‬

‫השם יתברך‬

‫ֹלׁשה‪.‬‬ ‫ּדֹור ִׁשין ָּבעֲ ָריֹות ִּב ְׁש ָ‬ ‫“אין ְ‬ ‫‪ֵ 200‬‬ ‫אׁשית ִּב ְׁשנָ יִ ם‪ .‬וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫וְ ל ֹא ְּב ַמעֲ ֵׂשה ְּב ֵר ִ‬ ‫ַּב ֶּמ ְרּכָ ָבה ְּביָ ִחיד‪ֶ ,‬אּלָ א ִאם ּכֵ ן ָהיָ ה ָחכָ ם‬ ‫ּומ ִבין ִמ ַּדעְ ּתֹו‪ּ .‬כָ ל ַה ִּמ ְס ַּתּכֵ ל ְּב ַא ְר ָּבעָ ה‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫ְּד ָב ִרים‪ָ ,‬ראּוי לֹו ּכְ ִאּלּו ל ֹא ָּבא לָ עֹולָ ם‪,‬‬ ‫ַמה ּלְ ַמעְ לָ ה‪ַ ,‬מה ּלְ ַמ ָּטה‪ַ ,‬מה ּלְ ָפנִ ים‪,‬‬ ‫ּומה ּלְ ָאחֹור‪ .‬וְ כָ ל ֶׁשּל ֹא ָחס עַ ל ּכְ בֹוד‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫קֹונֹו‪ָ ,‬ראּוי לֹו ֶׁשּל ֹא ָּבא לָ עֹולָ ם‪( :‬משנה‬ ‫אבות‪ ,‬פרק ב’‪ :‬משנה א’)‬ ‫‪201‬‬

‫(ו)מה‬

‫‪ 202‬עיין שם ברבי דב באר‪ ,‬המגיד‬ ‫ממזריץ‪ ,‬מגיד דבריו ליעקב‪ ,‬סימן‬ ‫ט”ו‪ ,‬קע”ג‪.‬‬

‫בהוסיפו עוד להעמיק באותו‬ ‫ענין‪ ,‬ורואה עוד שכל עמוק‬ ‫ממנו מוסיף תענוג‪ ,‬ונדמה לו‬ ‫על השכל הראשון—שהוא‬ ‫בתכלית הפשיטות‪ ,‬שלא היה‬ ‫שכל כל כך‪.‬‬ ‫וכן על דרך זה בעבודת‬ ‫הבורא ברוך הוא‪ ,‬כל מה‬ ‫שמוסיף האדם בעסק עבודתו‬ ‫ובהתקשרות מחשבתו ולבו‬ ‫למעלה—בכל דיבוריו ואותיות‬ ‫הקדושים היוצאים מפיו‪ ,‬בכל‬ ‫כוחו ותשוקתו לדבקה בו‬ ‫יתברך שמו—באמת לאמיתו‬ ‫בלי שום פניה חס ושלום‪,‬‬ ‫בודאי מרגיש תענוג גדול‬ ‫ובהירות נפלא בכלות הנפש‬ ‫ממש‪.‬‬ ‫ַמ ֲח ָׁש ָבה‬ ‫“לֵ ית‬ ‫אך‬ ‫ְּת ִפ ָיסא”‪—203‬בבהירות ההיא‬ ‫הבלתי מושג‪ ,‬וכישזכה‬ ‫להתמיד עוד בעבודתו—‬ ‫לעלות אל הר הו’יה מדרגא‬ ‫לדרגא מיום ליום‪ ,‬יהיה אצלו‬ ‫בחינת הבהירות דאתמול—‬ ‫בגדר ההשגה‪ ,‬ויארי לו בהירות‬ ‫חדש יותר דק שאין שכלו‬ ‫משיגו—ומתענג על הו’יה‬ ‫תענוג נפלא‪ ,‬וכן מיום אל יום‪.‬‬ ‫וזה שאמר הכתוב‪“ :‬וְ יָ ַדעְ ָּת‬ ‫ַהּיֹום וַ ֲה ֵׁשב ָֹת ֶאל לְ ָב ֶבָך”‪—204‬‬

‫“אנְ ְּת הּוא ִעּלָ ָאה עַ ל ּכָ ל עִ ּלָ ִאין‬ ‫‪ַ 203‬‬ ‫ְס ִת ָימא עַ ל ּכָ ל ְס ִת ִימין לֵ ית ַמ ֲח ָׁש ָבה‬ ‫ְּת ִפ ָיסא ָבְך ּכְ לָ ל” (תיקוני זנר‪ ,‬תיקונא‬ ‫ה’‪ :‬י”ז ע”א )‬ ‫‪“ 204‬וְ יָ ַדעְ ָּת ַהּיֹום וַ ֲה ֵׁשב ָֹת ֶאל לְ ָב ֶבָך ּכִ י‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים ַּב ָּׁש ַמיִ ם ִמ ַּמעַ ל‬ ‫יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה הּוא ָה ֱאל ִ‬ ‫וְ עַ ל ָה ָא ֶרץ ִמ ָּת ַחת ֵאין עֹוד‪( ”:‬דברים‬ ‫ד’‪ :‬ל”ט)‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫או בתפלה או קיום המצות‪,‬‬ ‫ולהקדים הצמצום‪ .‬שאם לא‬ ‫יקדים הצמצום‪ ,‬לא יוכל לבוא‬ ‫לידי קיום והעמדה—בדיבור‬ ‫או במעשה‪ ,‬כי בלא זה באהבה‬ ‫בלבד היה בטל ממציאות‪ ,‬ועל‬ ‫ידי הקדם הצמצום—נתקיים‬ ‫הדבר‪.‬‬ ‫כמו שאמרו חכמינו‬ ‫לברכה‪ּ”:‬כֹל ֶׁשּיִ ְר ַאת‬ ‫קֹוד ֶמת לְ ָחכְ ָמתֹו‪,‬‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫ִמ ְת ַקּיֶ ֶמת”‪—190‬דהיינו‬ ‫לו קיום והעמדה‬ ‫ומעשה‪ ,‬כי בלא זה‬ ‫באהבה לבד—היה‬ ‫ממציאות ברגע אחד‪.‬‬

‫זכרונם‬ ‫ֶח ְטאֹו‬ ‫ָחכְ ָמתֹו‬ ‫שיהיה‬ ‫בדיבור‬ ‫כי אם‬ ‫בטל‬

‫וגם כי במדת האהבה‪,‬‬ ‫מקלקלת השורה‪ ,‬יכול חס‬ ‫ושלום לעבור איזה גדר וסייג‬ ‫בלי הרגש‪ ,‬מחמת התלהבות‬ ‫כידודי אש אהבה‪ .‬בדרך משל‪:‬‬ ‫מי שאוהב למלך באהבה עזה‬ ‫ועצומה‪ ,‬יכול להיות שידבר‬ ‫או יעשה איזה תנועה בפני‬ ‫המלך—מה שאינו דרך ארץ‪,‬‬ ‫אך בהקדם היראה אשר בלבו‬ ‫ובכל אבריו‪ ,‬גם כי תבער אש‬ ‫האהבה [בלבו] לא יוכל לעבור‬ ‫את פי הו’יה לעשות קטנה או‬ ‫גדולה‪.‬‬ ‫וכן פירש הרב אור החיים על‬

‫אֹומר‪,‬‬ ‫ּדֹוסא ֵ‬ ‫“ר ִּבי ֲחנִ ינָ א ֶבן ָ‬ ‫‪ַ 190‬‬ ‫קֹוד ֶמת לְ ָחכְ ָמתֹו‪,‬‬ ‫ּכֹל ֶׁשּיִ ְר ַאת ֶח ְטאֹו ֶ‬ ‫ָחכְ ָמתֹו ִמ ְת ַקּיֶ ֶמת‪ .‬וְ כֹל ֶׁש ָחכְ ָמתֹו‬ ‫קֹוד ֶמת לְ יִ ְר ַאת ֶח ְטאֹו‪ֵ ,‬אין ָחכְ ָמתֹו‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫אֹומר‪ּ ,‬כֹל ֶׁש ַּמ ֲע ָׂשיו‬ ‫ִמ ְת ַקּיֶ ֶמת‪ .‬הּוא ָהיָ ה ֵ‬ ‫ְמ ֻר ִּבין ֵמ ָחכְ ָמתֹו‪ָ ,‬חכְ ָמתֹו ִמ ְת ַקּיֶ ֶמת‪ .‬וְ כֹל‬ ‫ֶׁש ָחכְ ָמתֹו ְמ ֻר ָּבה ִמ ַּמ ֲע ָׂשיו‪ֵ ,‬אין ָחכְ ָמתֹו‬ ‫ִמ ְת ַקּיֶ ֶמת‪( ”:‬משנה אבות ג’‪ :‬ט’)‬

‫ֹאמר לְ ֵבית‬ ‫פסוק‪ּ“ 191:‬כֹה ת ַ‬ ‫‪192‬‬ ‫יַ ֲעקֹב וְ ַתּגֵ יד לִ ְבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל” —‬ ‫כלומר‪ :‬מי שהוא בבחינת‬ ‫הו’יה‬ ‫“יַ עֲ קֹב”—העובד‬ ‫‪193‬‬ ‫[מיראת חטאו או עונש]‪,‬‬ ‫ֹאמר” לו—בלשון רכה‬ ‫“ת ַ‬ ‫[שהוא דרך אהבה וחיבה]‪,‬‬ ‫ומי שהוא בבחינת “יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל”—‬ ‫העובד מאהבה‪,‬‬ ‫“וְ ַתּגֵ יד” לו בדברים קשים‬ ‫כגידים‪ .‬לקשור היראה עם‬ ‫האהבה‪ ,‬על פי שניהם יקום‬ ‫‪ 191‬עיין שם באור החיים על שמות‬ ‫י”ט‪ :‬ג’—” אשר על כן נתחכם ה’‬ ‫לצוות בשני אופנים‪ ,‬בדרך אהבה‪,‬‬ ‫ודרך שררה והפחדה‪ ,‬ואמר גם שניהם‬ ‫במתק לשון צדיק בנושא אחד‪ ,‬והוא‬ ‫מה שהתחיל לומר כה תאמר‪ ,‬על‬ ‫זה הדרך כה‪ ,‬פירוש כסדר זה שאני‬ ‫אומר לך‪ ,‬תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד‬ ‫וגו’‪ ,‬פירוש יש בו אמירה רכה שהיא‬ ‫דרך אהבה וחיבה‪ ,‬ותגיד פירוש יש‬ ‫בו גם כן דברים קשים כגידים שהוא‬ ‫דרך הפחדה ויראה‪ ,‬ודקדק לומר בית‬ ‫יעקב באמירה‪ ,‬ובני ישראל בקושי‪,‬‬ ‫לומר חלק החסר לכל אחד משניהם‪,‬‬ ‫על זה הדרך‪ ,‬כי בית יעקב הם מדריגה‬ ‫הקטנה (עי’ זוהר ח”א קע”ז‪):‬‬ ‫שבאומתנו הקדושה‪ ,‬אשר לא ישיגו‬ ‫עבוד ה’ מאהבה אלא מיראה‪ ,‬לזה‬ ‫המצוה להם שצריכין להוסיף עבוד‬ ‫מאהבה‪ ,‬הרמוזה באמירה רכה כנזכר‪,‬‬ ‫ולבני ישראל שהם מדרגה הנבחרה‬ ‫והמעולה אשר ישיגו בחינת האהבה‪,‬‬ ‫אמר כנגדה ותגיד‪ ,‬שלא יספיק להם‬ ‫בחינת האהבה לגבי פרט אחד‪,‬‬ ‫וצריכין הם ליראה ולאהבה‪ ,‬מטעם‬ ‫שכתבנו‪”:‬‬ ‫‪192‬‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא‬ ‫“ּומׁשה עָ לָ ה ֶאל ָה ֱאל ִ‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫ֹאמר‬ ‫ֵאלָ יו יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ִמן ָה ָהר לֵ אמֹר ּכֹה ת ַ‬ ‫לְ ֵבית יַ עֲ קֹב וְ ַתּגֵ יד לִ ְבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‪”:‬‬ ‫(שמות י”ט‪ :‬ג’)‪,‬‬ ‫‪193‬‬

‫(מיראה)‬

‫פ‬

‫דבר בקיום והעמדה—בכל‬ ‫הנהגתו בתורה ותפלה ועבודה‬ ‫וקיום המצות באמת‪.‬‬ ‫ועל זה הדרך נוכל לפרש‬ ‫הפסוק הנזכר לעיל‪ּ“ :‬כִ י ל ֹא‬ ‫נּוסה ל ֹא‬ ‫ְב ִח ָּפזֹון ֵּתצֵ אּו ִּוב ְמ ָ‬ ‫ֵתלֵ כּון”‪ 194,‬כידוע הדבר היורד‬ ‫למטה—הולך‬ ‫מלמעלה‬ ‫במרוצה‪ ,‬כטבע מים הנגרים‬ ‫ממקום גבוה למקום נמוך‪,‬‬ ‫וזה נקרא‪‘ :‬אור ישר’‪ ,‬וממטה‬ ‫למעלה נקרא ‘אור חוזר’ כידוע‬ ‫ליודעי חכמה נסתרה דבר זה‪,‬‬ ‫וזה אינו יכול להיות במרוצה‬ ‫כל כך‪.‬‬ ‫לזה אמר‪ּ“ :‬כִ י ל ֹא ְב ִח ָּפזֹון‬ ‫במדת‬ ‫ֵּתצֵ אּו”—דהיינו‪:‬‬ ‫האהבה לבד—בלי צמצום‬ ‫ממדת היראה‪ ,‬כי זה דבר שאין‬ ‫לא קיום והעמדה‪ ,‬כי אם על‬ ‫ידי הצמצום—והקדים מדת‬ ‫היראה לקשר למדת אהבה‪.‬‬ ‫וזה מרחמי הבורא על‬ ‫בריותיו‪ ,‬שיוכלו לעבדו כל‬ ‫הימים בקיום והעמדה—שלא‬ ‫יתבטלו ממציאות בדבורים‪,‬‬ ‫כמאמר הכתוב‪“ :‬נַ ְפ ִׁשי יָ צְ ָאה‬ ‫‪195‬‬ ‫ְב ַד ְּברֹו‪”.‬‬ ‫וזהו‪ּ“ :‬כִ י הֹלֵ ְך לִ ְפנֵ יכֶ ם יְ הֹ‪-‬‬ ‫וָ ה”‪—196‬שהיא מדת הרחמים‪.‬‬ ‫‪194‬‬

‫ישעיה נ”ב‪ :‬י”ב‬

‫דֹודי ָח ַמק‬ ‫דֹודי וְ ִ‬ ‫“ּפ ַת ְח ִּתי ֲאנִ י לְ ִ‬ ‫‪ָ 195‬‬ ‫עָ ָבר נַ ְפ ִׁשי יָ צְ ָאה ְב ַד ְּברֹו ִּב ַּק ְׁש ִּתיהּו וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫אתיו וְ ל ֹא עָ נָ נִ י‪( ”:‬שיר‬ ‫אתיהּו ְק ָר ִ‬ ‫ְמצָ ִ‬ ‫השירים ה’‪ :‬ו’)‬ ‫נּוסה‬ ‫‪ּ“ 196‬כִ י ל ֹא ְב ִח ָּפזֹון ֵּתצֵ אּו ִּוב ְמ ָ‬ ‫ל ֹא ֵתלֵ כּון ּכִ י הֹלֵ ְך לִ ְפנֵ יכֶ ם יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‪( ”:‬ישעיהו‬ ‫ּומ ַא ִּס ְפכֶ ם ֱאל ֵ‬ ‫ְ‬

‫ע‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫מלאכים‪.‬‬

‫‪177‬‬

‫“ּב ֵר ִ‬ ‫וכתיב ְ‬ ‫אׁשית”‪—178‬בשביל‬ ‫ישראל‪ 179,‬בשבילם נברא‬ ‫העולם‪ ,‬וצמצם את עצמו‬ ‫בהשתלשלות עולמות אלפים‬ ‫עד אין מספר‪ ,‬עד שברא את‬ ‫האדם לכבודו שיעשה רצונו‬ ‫ושיבחר בחיים‪.‬‬ ‫והשם יתברך מחיה אותם‬ ‫בכל מקום אשר הוא שם‪ ,‬כי‬ ‫כשהאדם מקשר עצמו אליו‬ ‫יתברך—השם יתברך מאיר‬ ‫לו‪ ,‬והאדם יונק משדי החכמה‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים ַה ְס ֵּתר‬ ‫ויראה “ּכְ בֹד ֱאל ִ‬ ‫ָּד ָבר”‪ 180‬אשר טובו גנוז בתוכו‬ ‫בכל דבר המחיה אותו‪ ,‬שבאם‬ ‫לאו לא היה אותו הדבר כלל‬ ‫והיה בטל ממציאות‪.‬‬ ‫“ה ְר ֵאנִ י נָ א‬ ‫וזהו שאמר משה‪ַ :‬‬ ‫ֶאת ּכְ ב ֶֹדָך”‪—181‬באיזה מדה‬ ‫אתה נוהג עולמך‪ ,‬השיב לו‬ ‫הוא‪”:‬אנִ י ַאעֲ ִביר‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫הקדוש ברוך‬ ‫טּובי עַ ל ָּפנֶ יָך”‪ 182‬שהיא‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ּכָ ל‬ ‫מדת חכמה “וְ ַחּנ ִֹתי ֶאת ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫‪“ 177‬וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה ֵמ ַאיִ ן ָּתבֹוא וְ ֵאי זֶ ה‬ ‫ְמקֹום ִּבינָ ה‪ :‬וְ נֶ עֶ לְ ָמה ֵמעֵ ינֵ י כָ ל ָחי‬ ‫ּומעֹוף ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם נִ ְס ָּת ָרה‪( ”:‬איוב כ”ח‪:‬‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫כ‪-‬כ”א)‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים ֵאת‬ ‫אׁשית ָּב ָרא ֱאל ִ‬ ‫“ּב ֵר ִ‬ ‫‪ְ 178‬‬ ‫ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם וְ ֵאת ָה ָא ֶרץ‪( ”:‬בראשית‬ ‫א’‪ :‬א’)‬ ‫‪179‬‬

‫ויקרא רבה ל”ו‪ :‬ד’‬

‫ֹ‪-‬הים ַה ְס ֵּתר ָּד ָבר ּוכְ בֹד‬ ‫‪ּ“ 180‬כְ בֹד ֱאל ִ‬ ‫ְמלָ כִ ים ֲחקֹר ָּד ָבר‪( ”:‬משלי כ”ה‪ :‬ב’)‬ ‫ֹאמר ַה ְר ֵאנִ י נָ א ֶאת ּכְ ב ֶֹדָך‪”:‬‬ ‫‪“ 181‬וַ ּי ַ‬ ‫(שמות ל”ג‪ :‬י”ח)‬ ‫טּובי‬ ‫ֹאמר ֲאנִ י ַאעֲ ִביר ּכָ ל ִ‬ ‫‪ “ 182‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫אתי ְב ֵׁשם יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה לְ ָפנֶ יָך‬ ‫ַעל ָּפנֶ יָך וְ ָק ָר ִ‬ ‫וְ ַחּנ ִֹתי ֶאת ֲא ֶׁשר ָאחֹן וְ ִר ַח ְמ ִּתי ֶאת ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫ֲא ַר ֵחם‪( ”:‬שמות ל”ג‪ :‬י”ט)‬

‫ָאחֹן” בכל מקום שיצא אדם‬ ‫לחוץ [ויפול]‪ 183‬באיזה מדה‪,‬‬ ‫להאיר לו שם‪.‬‬ ‫כמאמר “פתחו לי כחודה‬ ‫של מחט ואני אפתח לכם‬ ‫כארובות השמים”‪—184‬אור‬ ‫עולם מאוצר חיים מאורי אור‬ ‫עולם‪.‬‬

‫הפטרת שופטים‬ ‫נּוסה‬ ‫“ּכִ י ל ֹא ְב ִח ָּפזֹון ֵּתצֵ אּו ִּוב ְמ ָ‬ ‫ל ֹא ֵתלֵ כּון ּכִ י הֹלֵ ְך לִ ְפנֵ יכֶ ם יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫‪185‬‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‪”:‬‬ ‫ּומ ַא ִּס ְפכֶ ם ֱאל ֵ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫פתח הרב‪ :‬כי הנה ידוע מאמר‬ ‫חכמינו זכרונם לברכה על‬ ‫“ּביֹום עֲ ׂשֹות יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫פסוק‪ְ :‬‬ ‫ֹלהים ֶא ֶרץ וְ ָׁש ָמיִ ם”‪—186‬‬ ‫ֱא ִ‬ ‫מתחלה עלה במחשבה לברוא‬ ‫את העולם במדת הדין וראה‬ ‫שאין העולם מתקיים עמד‬ ‫והקדים מדת הרחמים ושתפה‬ ‫‪187‬‬ ‫למדת הדין‪.‬‬ ‫דהנה באמת‪ ,‬כשעלה ברצונו‬ ‫הפשוט לברוא את העולמות‬ ‫וכל הברואים כולם—כדי‬ ‫להשפיע טובו לבריותיו‪ ,‬כטבע‬

‫‪183‬‬

‫(אפילו)‬

‫‪ 184‬עיין שם בשיר השירים רבה‬ ‫ה’‪ :‬ג’‬ ‫‪185‬‬

‫ישעיה נ”ב‪ :‬י”ב‬

‫“אּלֶ ה תֹולְ דֹות ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם וְ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫‪ֵ 186‬‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ‫ְּב ִה ָּב ְר ָאם ְּביֹום עֲ ׂשֹות יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱא ִ‬ ‫ֶא ֶרץ וְ ָׁש ָמיִ ם‪( ”:‬בראשית ב’‪ :‬ד’)‬ ‫‪187‬‬

‫פסיקתא רבתי פרשה מ’‬

‫הטוב להיטיב‪ .‬והנה אם היתה‬ ‫ההשפעה במילואה—כאשר‬ ‫הוא בכח ורצון המשפיע‬ ‫העליון לא היה יכולת בכח‬ ‫המקבל לקבל רוב השפע‪ .‬כי‬ ‫אם בחסד ורחמים המשפיע‬ ‫ברצונו הפשוט‪ ,‬מצמצם השפע‬ ‫בהשתלשלות מעולם לעולם‬ ‫בכדי שיוכל המקבל לקבל‪,‬‬ ‫כמשל כשמניקות הילד וכו’‪.‬‬ ‫והנה מה שאמרו רבותינו‬ ‫זכרונם לברכה‪“ :‬מתחלה‬ ‫עלה במחשבה” וכו’‪ ,‬והלא‬ ‫אין שינוי ברצון העליון‪ ,‬כמו‬ ‫שאמר הכתוב‪ּ“ :‬כִ י ֲאנִ י יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫‪188‬‬ ‫ל ֹא ָׁשנִ ִיתי”?‬ ‫ובאמת כך הוא‪ :‬מתחלה עלה‬ ‫במחשבה לברוא את העולם‬ ‫במדת הדין שהוא הצמצום‪,‬‬ ‫כי ראה שאין העולם מתקיים‬ ‫במדת הרחמים ושפע העליון‬ ‫בלי צמצום מחמת מיעוט כח‬ ‫המקבל‪ 189,‬לכן עמד והקדים‬ ‫מדת הרחמים‪ ,‬ושתפה למדת‬ ‫הדין‪ ,‬שזהו הרחמנות העליון—‬ ‫בהקדם מדת הדין וצמצום‬ ‫השפע לפי כח המקבלים‪.‬‬ ‫וכן צריך האדם להנהיג את‬ ‫עצמו בכל עבודתו—בתורה‬ ‫‪ּ“ 188‬כִ י ֲאנִ י יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ל ֹא ָׁשנִ ִיתי וְ ַא ֶּתם‬ ‫ְּבנֵ י יַ עֲ קֹב ל ֹא כְ לִ ֶיתם‪( ”:‬מלאכי ג’‪ :‬ו’)‬ ‫השווה‪ :‬צמצום לא כפשוטו‬ ‫ומחמת מיעוט כח המקבל ‪ ,‬עיין שם‬ ‫ברבי דב באר‪ ,‬המגיד ממזריץ‪ ,‬מגיד‬ ‫דבריו ליעקב‪ ,‬סימן א’‪ ,‬צ”א‪ ,‬צ”ג‪,‬‬ ‫ק”ד‪ :‬ב’‪ ,‬קי”ג‪ ,‬קט”ו‪,‬קי”ח‪ ,‬קכ”ד‪:‬א’‪,‬‬ ‫קכ”ז‪ ,‬קל”ז‪ ,‬קס”ב‪ ,‬קס”ד‪ ,‬קס”ה‪,‬‬ ‫קס”ח‪ ,‬קע”ג‪ ,‬קע”ז‪ ,‬קע”ט‪ ,‬קפ”ד‪,‬‬ ‫ר”ב‪ ,‬רכ”ה‪ ,‬רמ”ח‪ ,‬רנ”ה‪ ,‬ובהוספות‬ ‫סימן קכ”ג וכו’‬

‫‪189‬‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫רשות לשאול ולהבין דבר‬ ‫מתוך דבר‪“ ,‬וְ לִ ְפנֵ י ִמי”—שהוא‬ ‫החכמה שהוא האין‪ ,‬מה ידעת‪,‬‬ ‫כי אם בהירות הו’יה המחיה‬ ‫ו”א ָּתה עָ ִתיד לִ ֵּתן ִּדין”—‬ ‫הכל‪ַ ,‬‬ ‫שהוא המתקת דינים שם‬ ‫‪161‬‬ ‫“יִ ְת ָּפ ְרדּו ּכָ ל ּפֹעֲ לֵ י ָאוֶ ן”‪.‬‬ ‫והנה פנחס זכה וקנא לא‪-‬להיו‪,‬‬ ‫שנתעלמה הלכה והוא נזכר‬ ‫ועשה מעשה‪ 162‬שבא למדת‬ ‫חכמה ואין‪ ,‬ושם אין שום‬ ‫מעכב‪ ,‬שהוא למעלה מהזמן‬ ‫בביטול הטבע‪ ,‬והרבה ניסים‬ ‫נעשו לו‪ 163‬שבא לחיות כל‬ ‫העולמות המחיה את כולם‪.‬‬ ‫“הנְ נִ י נ ֵֹתן לֹו”—שעדיין‬ ‫וזהו‪ִ :‬‬ ‫קיים‪ .‬שהוא חיות כל העולמות‬ ‫וחי וקיים‪ ,‬שהוא תחיית המתים‬ ‫ליתן חיים עד סוף כל דרגין—‬ ‫“מלְ ָאה ָה ָא ֶרץ ֵּדעָ ה ֶאת יְ הֹ‪-‬‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫וָ ה”‪ 164‬וחי לעולם‪ 165,‬אמן כן‬ ‫יהי רצון‪.‬‬

‫פרשת ואתחנן‬

‫אינם יכולים להפרד לעולם‪.‬‬

‫פתח הרב במאמר המדרש‬ ‫הרי בהרבה לשונות נקרא לשון‬ ‫‘תפלה’—למה אמר בלשון‪:‬‬ ‫“וָ ֶא ְת ַחּנַ ן”?‪ 167‬אלא כשאמר‬ ‫משה להקדוש ברוך הוא‬ ‫“ה ְר ֵאנִ י נָ א ֶאת ּכְ ב ֶֹדָך”?‪—168‬‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫באיזה מדה אתה נוהג את‬ ‫עולמך‪ ,‬אמר לו הקדוש ברוך‬ ‫טּובי‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫הוא‪”:‬אנִ י ַא ֲע ִביר ּכָ ל‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫עַ ל ָּפנֶ יָך‪...‬וְ ַחּנ ִֹתי ֶאת ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫‪169‬‬ ‫ָאחֹן‪”...‬‬

‫יָ ַסד‬ ‫ְּב ָחכְ ָמה‬ ‫ו”יְ ה‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ָא ֶרץ”‪—172‬חכמה נקראת יו”ד‬ ‫שהיא נקודה נעלמת‪ 173,‬אפילו‬ ‫נקודה קטנה כי אם מה שהעין‬ ‫יכול לראות—כבר נקרא‬ ‫יו”ד‪ ,‬שממנה נבנה כל העולם‬ ‫והאותיות‪[ ,‬שממנה] יכולים‬ ‫לעשות איזו אות שרוצים‪.‬‬

‫‪166‬‬

‫“מי יִ ֶּתנְ ָך ּכְ ָאח לִ י‬ ‫כתיב‪ִ :‬‬ ‫יֹונֵק ְׁש ֵדי ִא ִּמי ֶא ְמצָ ֲאָך ַבחּוץ‬ ‫“א ֲה ָבה‬ ‫ֶא ָּׁש ְקָך”‪ 170,‬דהנה יש ַ‬ ‫ֶׁש ִהיא ְתלּויָ ה ְב ָד ָבר‪ָּ ,‬ב ֵטל ָּד ָבר‪,‬‬ ‫ְּב ֵטלָ ה ַא ֲה ָבה”‪ 171,‬ואהבת אחים‬ ‫“אינָ ּה ְּתלּויָ ה ְב ָד ָבר”—כי‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫ממקום ושורש אחד יצאו—‬ ‫לטוב‪ ,‬כמאמר חכמינו זכרונם לברכה‬ ‫(נוסחא בסוף בבלי סוטה מ”ט ע”ב‬ ‫עיין שם)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 166‬בהרבה מקומות מצינו‪ ,‬למשל‪:‬‬ ‫תנחומא ואתחנן ג’‪:‬ו’‬ ‫‪“ 167‬וָ ֶא ְת ַחּנַ ן ֶאל יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ָּבעֵ ת ַה ִהוא‬ ‫לֵ אמֹר‪( ”:‬דברים ג’‪ :‬כ”ג)‬

‫והבן היונק משדי אמו‪ ,‬כל זמן‬ ‫שאינו אוכל כלל—כרוך הוא‬ ‫הרבה אחר אמו‪ ,‬אפילו שאין‬ ‫בו דעת—אין יכול להפרד‬ ‫ממנה אפילו רגע אחד‪.‬‬ ‫ואמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה‪:‬‬ ‫“אברהם אבינו קיים כל התורה‬ ‫כולה”‪ 174,‬ולהבין הדבר הוא זה‬ ‫“ּב ִה ָּב ְר ָאם”‪— 175‬‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫דכתיב‪:‬‬ ‫באברהם‪ 176,‬שבשבילו נברא‬ ‫העולם‪ ,‬בשביל שהכיר את‬ ‫בוראו ובא למדת אין שהיא‬ ‫חכמה אשר היא “נֶ עֶ לְ ָמה‬ ‫ֵמעֵ ינֵ י כָ ל ָחי” שהם המלאכים‬ ‫ו”ּומעֹוף‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫שהם חיים וקיימים‪,‬‬ ‫ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם” גם כן נקראו‬

‫ֹאמר ַה ְר ֵאנִ י נָ א ֶאת ּכְ ב ֶֹדָך‪”:‬‬ ‫‪“ 168‬וַ ּי ַ‬ ‫(שמות ל”ג‪ :‬י”ח)‬

‫‪ּ“ 161‬כִ י ִהּנֵ ה א ֶֹיְביָך יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ּכִ י ִהּנֵ ה‬ ‫ֹאבדּו יִ ְת ָּפ ְרדּו ּכָ ל ּפ ֲֹעלֵ י ָאוֶ ן‪”:‬‬ ‫א ֶֹיְביָך י ֵ‬ ‫(תהילים צ”ב‪ :‬י’)‬ ‫‪162‬‬

‫בבלי סנהדרין פ”ב ע”א‬

‫‪163‬‬

‫בבלי סנהדרין פ”ב ע”א‬

‫‪“ 164‬ל ֹא יָ ֵרעּו וְ ל ֹא יַ ְׁש ִחיתּו ְּבכָ ל ַהר‬ ‫ָק ְד ִׁשי ּכִ י ָמלְ ָאה ָה ָא ֶרץ ֵּד ָעה ֶאת יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ּכַ ַּמיִ ם לַ ּיָ ם ְמכַ ִּסים‪( ”:‬ישעיהו י”א‪ :‬ט’)‬ ‫‪ 165‬בכתב יד ב’ נוספה הגה”ה כאן‬ ‫בסוגריים בזה”ל‪ :‬הג”ה‪ ,‬על דרך‬ ‫ותחית המתים בא על ידי אליהו זכור‬

‫ס‬

‫טּובי‬ ‫ֹאמר ֲאנִ י ַאעֲ ִביר ּכָ ל ִ‬ ‫‪ “ 169‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫אתי ְב ֵׁשם יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה לְ ָפנֶ יָך‬ ‫עַ ל ָּפנֶ יָך וְ ָק ָר ִ‬ ‫וְ ַחּנ ִֹתי ֶאת ֲא ֶׁשר ָאחֹן וְ ִר ַח ְמ ִּתי ֶאת ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫ֲא ַר ֵחם‪( ”:‬שמות ל”ג‪ :‬י”ט)‬ ‫“מי יִ ֶּתנְ ָך ּכְ ָאח לִ י יֹונֵ ק ְׁש ֵדי ִא ִּמי‬ ‫‪ִ 170‬‬ ‫ֶא ְמצָ ֲאָך ַבחּוץ ֶא ָּׁש ְקָך ּגַ ם ל ֹא יָבּוזּו לִ י‪”:‬‬ ‫(שיר השיריםי ח’‪ :‬א’)‬ ‫‪ּ“ 171‬כָ ל ַא ֲה ָבה ֶׁש ִהיא ְתלּויָ ה ְב ָד ָבר‪,‬‬ ‫ָּב ֵטל ָּד ָבר‪ְּ ,‬ב ֵטלָ ה ַא ֲה ָבה‪ .‬וְ ֶׁש ֵאינָ ּה‬ ‫ְּתלּויָ ה ְב ָד ָבר‪ֵ ,‬אינָ ּה ְּב ֵטלָ ה לְ עֹולָ ם‪ֵ .‬איזֹו‬ ‫ִהיא ַא ֲה ָבה ַה ְּתלּויָ ה ְב ָד ָבר‪ ,‬זֹו ַא ֲה ַבת‬ ‫ַא ְמנֹון וְ ָת ָמר‪ .‬וְ ֶׁש ֵאינָ ּה ְּתלּויָ ה ְב ָד ָבר‪ ,‬זֹו‬ ‫ַא ֲה ַבת ָּדוִ יד וִ יהֹונָ ָתן‪( ”:‬משנה אבות‬ ‫ה’‪ :‬ט”ז)‬

‫‪“ 172‬יְ ה‪-‬וָ ה ְּב ָחכְ ָמה יָ ַסד ָא ֶרץ ּכֹונֵ ן‬ ‫ָׁש ַמיִ ם ִּב ְתבּונָ ה‪( ”:‬משלי ג’‪ :‬י”ט)‬ ‫‪“ 173‬וְ עַ ד ְּד ִאיהּו זַ ִּמין לְ גַ ָּבּה ְּתחֹות‬ ‫יׁשאן‬ ‫ּגַ ְד ָפ ָהא ַמאן ְּד ִנָקיט ִאיּנּון ַק ִּד ָ‬ ‫ּנְקּוּדה ְט ִמ ָירא‬ ‫ִּוב ְרכָ אן‪ ,‬לָ א ִא ְת ְמלֵ י ִמ ָ‬ ‫ַההּוא עָ לְ ָמא עִ ּלָ ָאה‪”,‬‬ ‫(זהר חלק א’‪ :‬קס”א ע”א‪ ,‬ועיין שם‬ ‫בתיקוני הזהר תיקון י”ח‪ :‬ל”ב ע”א)‬ ‫‪174‬‬

‫בבלי יומא כ”ח ע”ב‬

‫“אּלֶ ה תֹולְ דֹות ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם וְ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫‪ֵ 175‬‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ‫ְּב ִה ָּב ְר ָאם ְּביֹום עֲ ׂשֹות יְ הֹוָ ה ֱא ִ‬ ‫ֶא ֶרץ וְ ָׁש ָמיִ ם‪( ”:‬בראשית ב’‪ :‬ד’)‬ ‫‪176‬‬

‫בראשית רבה י”ב‪ :‬ט’‬

‫נ‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫דלכאורה השמים שהוא‬ ‫במעלה יותר מן הארץ‬ ‫היה מהראוי לברוא שמים‬ ‫“ּב ְתבּונָ ה”‪.‬‬ ‫“ּב ָחכְ ָמה” והארץ ִ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫והנה האמת ידוע‪ :‬שעיקר ברית‬ ‫העולם היה‪ ,‬עד שנשתלשל לזה‬ ‫העולם השפל‪ ,‬ונברא האדם‬ ‫שמעורב מטוב ורע‪ ,‬לעבוד‬ ‫את האדמה ולהעלות הכל אל‬ ‫שרשו‪ ,‬ובכל מדה ומדה שהוא‬ ‫מודד—שיהיה הכל להו’יה‬ ‫לבדו‪.‬‬ ‫והנה האדם כל מה שעושה‬ ‫ורואה איזה דבר שבעולם—‬ ‫ובכל מה שהוא עוסק במעשה‬ ‫ובדיבור ובמחשבה‪ ,‬צריך‬ ‫שיחפש חפש מחופש ושיראה‬ ‫ביראת הו’יה שנשתלשל ושרוי‬ ‫בשכל המחיה אותו‪ּ“ ,‬כִ י זֶ ה ּכָ ל‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים עָ ָׂשה‬ ‫ָה ָא ָדם”‪“ 152‬וְ ָה ֱאל ִ‬ ‫‪153‬‬ ‫ֶׁשּיִ ְראּו ִמּלְ ָפנָ יו”‪.‬‬ ‫דרך משל‪ :‬אם נזדמן לו באיזה‬ ‫מדת יראה‪ ,‬יראה בשרשו—‬ ‫ביראת הו’יה וליבוש מפניו‪ ,‬וכן‬ ‫בכל המדות‪ .‬אבל בכל זה יכול‬ ‫להיות שידמה לו שיחליפנו‬ ‫וימיר את הרע בטוב‪ ,‬ועדיין‬ ‫אינו כל כך בשלימות ואין‬ ‫האמת כן‪ ,‬כל זמן שהוא בתוך‬ ‫המדות ותחת הזמן‪.‬‬

‫אבל העבודה האמתית‪:‬‬ ‫צריך שיבא למדת חכמה—‬ ‫‪154‬‬ ‫“וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה ֵמ ַאיִ ן ִּת ָּמצֵ א”‬ ‫שהוא למעלה מן הזמן‪ ,‬שהוא‬ ‫הראשית‪ ,‬ולהבין בבינה—‬ ‫להבין דבר מתוך דבר‪ ,‬שהם‬ ‫“ּדלָ א ִמ ְת ָּפ ְר ָׁשן‬ ‫תרין ריעין ְ‬ ‫לְ ָעלְ ִמין”‪ 155,‬כמבואר בספר‬ ‫יצירה‪“ :‬הבן בחכמה וחכם‬ ‫‪156‬‬ ‫בבינה”‪.‬‬ ‫וכל דבר אשר יעשה במעשה‬ ‫ודיבור ומחשבה‪ ,‬הכל יהיה‬ ‫בלתי להו’יה לבדו‪ .‬והו’יה יראנו‬ ‫בנפלאות מתורתו ובעבודתו‪,‬‬ ‫ובכל עת יהיה בעינינו כחדשים‬ ‫מעשה הו’יה כי נורא הוא‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו‪“ :‬יְ ה‪-‬וָ ה ְּב ָחכְ ָמה יָ ַסד‬ ‫ָא ֶרץ”—שאי אפשר ליסד‬ ‫ארץ—כל הארציות בכל‬ ‫מה שהוא עוסק בעולם הזה‬ ‫וכל מה שהוא רואה ושומע‬ ‫וכל דבר וענין שבא לידו‪ ,‬אי‬ ‫”ּב ָחכְ ָמה”—‬ ‫אפשר כי אם ְ‬ ‫שהוא הראשית‪ ,‬וסוף מעשה‬ ‫במחשבה תחלה‪.‬‬ ‫ו”ּכֹונֵ ן ָׁש ַמיִ ם ִּב ְתבּונָ ה”—‬ ‫כשרוצה‪ 157‬ל”ּכֹונֵ ן ָׁש ַמיִ ם”—‬ ‫שהם המדות אש ומים שהם‬ ‫אהבה ויראה‪‘ ,‬מים’—הם‬ ‫התפשטות ממעלה למטה‪,‬‬ ‫ו’אש’—הוא צמצום ועולה‬ ‫למעלה‪ ,‬אי אפשר כי אם‬

‫ּוׁש ָח ִקים יִ ְרעֲ פּו ָטל‪( ”:‬משלי ג’‪ :‬י”ט)‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫‪“ 152‬סֹוף ָּד ָבר ַהּכֹל נִ ְׁש ָמע ֶאת ָה ֱאל ֹ‪-‬‬ ‫ִהים יְ ָרא וְ ֶאת ִמצְ ָֹותיו ְׁשמֹור ּכִ י זֶ ה ּכָ ל‬ ‫ָה ָא ָדם‪( ”:‬קהלת י”ב‪ :‬י”ג)‬ ‫‪“ 153‬יָ ַדעְ ִּתי ּכִ י ּכָ ל ֲא ֶׁשר יַ עֲ ֶׂשה ָה ֱאל ֹ‪-‬‬ ‫הֹוסיף‬ ‫ִהים הּוא יִ ְהיֶ ה לְ עֹולָ ם עָ לָ יו ֵאין לְ ִ‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים עָ ָׂשה‬ ‫ּומ ֶּמּנּו ֵאין לִ גְ רֹעַ וְ ָה ֱאל ִ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ֶׁשּיִ ְראּו ִמּלְ ָפנָ יו‪( “ :‬קהלת ג’‪ :‬י”ד)‬

‫ב’תבונה’—להבין דבר מתוך‬ ‫דבר‪ ,‬על מה עשה הו’יה ככה‪,‬‬ ‫כי אם להזכירו ולהעלות אל‬ ‫שרשו המחיה כל דבר‪ ,‬שהוא‬ ‫למעלה מן המדות ומן הזמן‪.‬‬ ‫ו”ּב ַד ְעּתֹו ְּתהֹומֹות נִ ְב ָקעּו”—‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫כשיעשה האדם בכל דבר‪:‬‬ ‫לבוא למדת אין שהוא ‘חכמה’‬ ‫“מלְ ָאה‬ ‫ולהתבונן בבינה‪ ,‬אז ָ‬ ‫ָה ָא ֶרץ ֵּד ָעה ֶאת יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה”‪—158‬‬ ‫שיתמלא אל‪-‬הות בכל הארץ‬ ‫ו”ּב ַד ְעּתֹו‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫שהוא התהומות‪,‬‬ ‫[של] ְּתהֹומֹות נִ ְב ָקעּו”—דעת‬ ‫הו’יה‪.‬‬ ‫כמו שיהיה בביאת המשיח‬ ‫במהרה בימינו אמן‪ ,‬שימלא‬ ‫הארץ דעה את הו’יה‪ ,‬כן יכול‬ ‫להיות להצדיק העובד הו’יה‬ ‫באמת כנזכר לעיל‪ ,‬שיקוים‪:‬‬ ‫“ק ְר ָבה ֶאל נַ ְפ ִׁשי גְ ָאלָ ּה”‪—159‬‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫שהיא גאולה פרטית בביטול כל‬ ‫מדותיו בלתי להו’יה לבדו—‬ ‫בחכמה בתבונה ובדעת‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו מה שאמרו רבותינו‬ ‫“ּדע‪ֵ ,‬מ ַאיִ ן‬ ‫זכרונם לברכה‪ַ :‬‬ ‫הראשית‪,‬‬ ‫את”—שהוא‬ ‫ָּב ָ‬ ‫וכולם בחכמה עשית‪“ ,‬וְ לִ ְפנֵ י‬ ‫ִמי”—כמאמר הזהר הקדוש‪:‬‬ ‫“מי”‪—160‬שניתן‬ ‫בינה מקראת ִ‬ ‫‪“ 158‬ל ֹא יָ ֵרעּו וְ ל ֹא יַ ְׁש ִחיתּו ְּבכָ ל ַהר‬ ‫ָק ְד ִׁשי ּכִ י ָמלְ ָאה ָה ָא ֶרץ ֵּדעָ ה ֶאת יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ּכַ ַּמיִ ם לַ ּיָ ם ְמכַ ִּסים‪( ”:‬ישעיהו י”א‪ :‬ט’)‬

‫“וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה ֵמ ַאיִ ן ִּת ָּמצֵ א וְ ֵאי זֶ ה‬ ‫ְמקֹום ִּבי” (איוב כ”ח‪ :‬י”ב)‪,‬‬

‫‪159‬‬

‫“ק ְר ָבה ֶאל נַ ְפ ִׁשי גְ ָאלָ ּה לְ ַמעַ ן א ַֹיְבי‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ְּפ ֵדנִ י‪( ”:‬תהלים ס”ט‪ :‬י”ט)‬

‫“אּלֵ ין ַא ָּבא וְ ִא ָּמא ְּדלָ א ִמ ְת ָּפ ְר ָׁשן‬ ‫‪ִ 155‬‬ ‫לְ עָ לְ ִמין” (זהר חלק ג’‪ :‬ק”כ ע”א)‬

‫“מי זאת עֹולָ ה ִמן ַה ִּמ ְד ָּבר‬ ‫‪ִ 160‬‬ ‫ְמ ֻק ֶּט ֶרת מר ּולְ בנָ ה וְ גֹו’ ִמי זאת וַ ַּדאי‬ ‫ִמ ִּס ְט ָרא ְּד ִמ”י ִאיהּו וַ ַּדאי ִּבינָ ה ּכְ לִ ילָ א‬ ‫ּבּוס ִמין” (זהר חלק ב’‪:‬‬ ‫ִמ ִּׁש ְב ָעה ִמינֵ י ְ‬ ‫קי”ז ע”א)‬

‫‪154‬‬

‫‪156‬‬

‫ספר יצירה‪ ,‬פרק א’‪ :‬משנה ד’‬

‫‪157‬‬

‫(ו)כשרוצה‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫פרשת פנחס‬

‫ושורש כל התענוגים‪.‬‬

‫“הנְ נִ י נ ֵֹתן לֹו ֶאת ְּב ִר ִיתי‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ָׁשלֹום”‪ 141‬פתח הרב במאמר‬ ‫“הנְ נִ י נ ֵֹתן לֹו”—‬ ‫המדרש‪ִ :‬‬ ‫שעדיין קיים‪ 142,‬זהו שאמר‬ ‫“ּב ִר ִיתי ָהיְ ָתה ִאּתֹו‬ ‫הכתוב‪ְ :‬‬ ‫‪143‬‬ ‫ַה ַחּיִ ים וְ ַה ָּׁשלֹום”‪.‬‬

‫והנה תענוג תמידי אינו תענוג‪,‬‬ ‫דרך משל‪ :‬האב אוהב לבנו‪,‬‬ ‫כשהוא תמיד אצלו—לא יש‬ ‫הרגש תענוג כל כך‪ ,‬ואם יעבור‬ ‫זמן רב שלא ראה אותו—‬ ‫כשבא אצלו מרגיש תענוג‬ ‫גדול‪ .‬וכן במדת יראה‪ ,‬מי‬ ‫שהוא רגיל אצל המלך—אינו‬ ‫נופל עליו כל יראת המלך‪ ,‬ומי‬ ‫שאינו רואה את המלך כי אם‬ ‫לפרקים—בודאי נופל עליו‬ ‫אימה ופחד בראותו את המלך‪.‬‬

‫ֹ‪-‬היָך ֵאׁש‬ ‫כתיב‪ּ“ :‬כִ י יְ הֹו‪ָ-‬ה ֱאל ֶ‬ ‫אֹכְ לָ ה הּוא”‪ 144,‬ואמר בזהר‬ ‫הקדוש‪“ :‬אש אוכלה אש—‬ ‫‪145‬‬ ‫וְ ָׁשצֵ י ּכָ ל אשא בעלמא‪”.‬‬ ‫ולפי הפשוט הפירוש הוא‪:‬‬ ‫שצריך העובד האמיתי שיפול‬ ‫עליו התלהבות בעבודת הבורא‬ ‫ברוך הוא וברוך שמו‪ ,‬שירגיש‬ ‫כל כך תענוג עד שיתבטל מלבו‬ ‫כל תאות עולם הזה‪ ,‬וכולא‬ ‫כלא חשוב‪.‬‬ ‫אשר באמת כל תענוגי עולם‬ ‫הזה נשתלשל מעולם התענוג‪,‬‬ ‫וכל התענוגים שבכל העולם‬ ‫ומה שיכול להיות בעולם—‬ ‫אינם כטפה מן הים נגד התענוג‬ ‫האמתי בעבודת הבורא ברוך‬ ‫הוא וברוך שמו שהוא החיים‬ ‫‪“ 141‬לָ כֵ ן ֱאמֹר ִהנְ נִ י נ ֵֹתן לֹו ֶאת ְּב ִר ִיתי‬ ‫ָׁשלֹום‪( ”:‬במדבר כ”ה‪ :‬י”ב)‬ ‫‪142‬‬

‫במדרש רבה כ”א‪ :‬ג’‬

‫“ּב ִר ִיתי ָהיְ ָתה ִאּתֹו ַה ַחּיִ ים‬ ‫‪ְ 143‬‬ ‫ּומ ְּפנֵ י‬ ‫מֹורא וַ ּיִ ָיר ֵאנִ י ִ‬ ‫וְ ַה ָּׁשלֹום וָ ֶא ְּתנֵ ם לֹו ָ‬ ‫ְׁש ִמי נִ ַחת הּוא‪( ”:‬מלאכי ב’‪ :‬ה’)‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬היָך ֵאׁש אֹכְ לָ ה‬ ‫‪ּ“ 144‬כִ י יְ הֹו‪ָ-‬ה ֱאל ֶ‬ ‫הּוא ֵאל ַקּנָ א‪( ”:‬דברים ד’‪ :‬כ”ד)‬ ‫מׁשה ּכִ י יהו”ה‬ ‫‪“ 145‬וְ ַעל ָּדא ָא ַמר ֶ‬ ‫אלהי”ך ֵאׁש אֹוכְ לָ ה הּוא‪ ,‬אֹוכְ לָ ה וַ ַּדאי‪,‬‬ ‫ָאכִ יל וְ ָׁשצֵ י ּכָ ל ַמה ְּד ָׁש ֵרי ְּתחֹותֹוי‪ ,‬וְ ַעל‬ ‫ָּדא ָא ַמר יהו”ה אלהי”ָך‪ ,‬וְ ל ֹא אלהינ”ּו‪,‬‬ ‫הֹורא ִחּוְ ָורא‬ ‫מׁשה ְּב ַההּוא נְ ָ‬ ‫ְּבגִ ין ְּד ֶ‬ ‫ִדלְ ֵעילָ א ֲהוָ ה‪ְּ ,‬דלָ א ָׁשצֵ י וְ לָ א ָאכִ יל‪.‬‬ ‫(זהר‪ ,‬חלק א’‪ :‬נ”א ע”א)‬

‫וזהו שאנו מתפללין בכל יום‪:‬‬ ‫“ה ְמ ַח ֵּדׁש ְּבטּובֹו ְּבכָ ל יֹום ָּת ִמיד‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫אׁשית‪ 146”.‬שבאמת‬ ‫ַמעֲ ֵׂשה ְב ֵר ִ‬ ‫מצינו מאמר חכמינו זכרונם‬ ‫לברכה‪ :‬שמיישנים דברי תורה‬ ‫בלבו וכו’ “בכל יום יהיה‬ ‫בעיניך כחדשים”‪“ ,‬כאלו היום‬ ‫‪147‬‬ ‫נתנה”‪.‬‬ ‫שגם בעבודת השם יתברך‬ ‫כשאדם שומע דברי מוסר‪ ,‬ואם‬ ‫נעשה לו כהרגל אפילו ששומע‬ ‫דברים העומדים ברומו של‬ ‫עולם‪ ,‬כבר נתיישנו בלבו ואינו‬ ‫מעורר לבבו כל כך להתלהב‬ ‫אל הו’יה‪ ,‬אבל אם לפרקים‬ ‫הוא שומע איזה דברי מוסר‬ ‫מחדש‪ ,‬בודאי יתלהב לבו אל‬ ‫הו’יה יותר‪ .‬זהו בענין השמיעה‪,‬‬

‫“ה ְמ ַח ֵּדׁש ְּבטּובֹו ְּבכָ ל יֹום ָּת ִמיד‬ ‫‪ַ 146‬‬ ‫אׁשית‪ּ .‬כָ ָאמּור לְ ע ֵֹׂשה‬ ‫ַמעֲ ֵׂשה ְב ֵר ִ‬ ‫אֹורים ּגְ דֹלִ ים‪ּ .‬כִ י עֹולָ ם ַח ְסּדֹו‪( ”:‬סדור‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫תפילה‪ :‬סדר יוצר)‪ .‬עיין שם כנזכר‬ ‫לעיל בפרשת ואתחנן על הרגשת‬ ‫קרבת הא‪-‬ל מצמצום לא כפשוטו‪,‬‬ ‫המאפשרת את העבודה שבגשמיות‪.‬‬ ‫‪147‬‬

‫ספרי דברים ו’‪ :‬ו’‬

‫מ‬

‫וכן בכל דבר בתורתו ועבודתו‪,‬‬ ‫כשנתיישן בלבו אינו‪ 148‬מרגיש‬ ‫דבר חדש באהבתו ויראתו‪.‬‬ ‫והעצה שצריך האדם להתחזק‬ ‫יתברך—ולחדש‬ ‫בעבודתו‬ ‫“ח ָד ִׁשים לַ ְּב ָק ִרים ַר ָּבה”‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫‪149‬‬ ‫אמונתו יראתו ואהבתו‪.‬‬ ‫עד שירגיש שנתבטלו כל‬ ‫המדות‪ ,‬ויבוא למדת אין שהוא‬ ‫הראשית שהוא אש אוכלה‬ ‫אש—וכשהמס דונג מפני אש‬ ‫כן יאבדו ממנו כל המדות‬ ‫הרעות‪ ,‬בלתי להו’יה לבדו‬ ‫לעשות נחת רוח ליוצרו‪ ,‬כי זה‬ ‫כל האדם‪.‬‬ ‫ולבאר יותר בטוב טעם ודעת‪,‬‬ ‫הנה אמרו רבותינו זכרונם‬ ‫לׁשה‬ ‫“ה ְס ַּתּכֵ ל ִּב ְׁש ָ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫לברכה‪:‬‬ ‫ְד ָב ִרים וְ ֵאין ַא ָּתה ָבא לִ ֵידי‬ ‫את‪ּ ,‬ולְ ָאן‬ ‫עֲ ֵב ָרה‪ַּ .‬דע‪ֵ ,‬מ ַאיִ ן ָּב ָ‬ ‫ַא ָּתה הֹולֵ ְך‪ ,‬וְ לִ ְפנֵ י ִמי ַא ָּתה‬ ‫‪150‬‬ ‫עָ ִתיד לִ ֵּתן ִּדין וְ ֶח ְׁשּבֹון‪”.‬‬ ‫כתיב‪“ :‬יְ ה‪-‬וָ ה ְּב ָחכְ ָמה יָ ַסד‬ ‫ָא ֶרץ ּכֹונֵ ן ָׁש ַמיִ ם ִּב ְתבּונָ ה‪:‬‬ ‫ְּב ַד ְעּתֹו ְּתהֹומֹות נִ ְב ָקעּו‪—151”:‬‬ ‫‪148‬‬

‫(ו)אינו‬

‫“ח ָד ִׁשים לַ ְּב ָק ִרים ַר ָּבה ֱאמּונָ ֶתָך‪”:‬‬ ‫‪ֲ 149‬‬ ‫(איכה ג’‪ :‬כ”ג)‬ ‫אֹומר‪,‬‬ ‫‪“ 150‬עֲ ַק ְביָ א ֶבן ַמ ֲהלַ לְ ֵאל ֵ‬ ‫לׁשה ְד ָב ִרים וְ ֵאין ַא ָּתה ָבא‬ ‫ִה ְס ַּתּכֵ ל ִּב ְׁש ָ‬ ‫את‪ּ ,‬ולְ ָאן ַא ָּתה‬ ‫לִ ֵידי עֲ ֵב ָרה‪ַּ .‬דע‪ֵ ,‬מ ַאיִ ן ָּב ָ‬ ‫הֹולֵ ְך‪ ,‬וְ לִ ְפנֵ י ִמי ַא ָּתה עָ ִתיד לִ ֵּתן ִּדין‬ ‫רּוחה‪,‬‬ ‫את‪ִ ,‬מ ִּט ָּפה ְס ָ‬ ‫וְ ֶח ְׁשּבֹון‪ֵ .‬מ ַאיִ ן ָּב ָ‬ ‫ּולְ ָאן ַא ָּתה הֹולֵ ְך‪ ,‬לִ ְמקֹום עָ ָפר ִר ָּמה‬ ‫וְ תֹולֵ עָ ה‪ .‬וְ לִ ְפנֵ י ִמי ַא ָּתה עָ ִתיד לִ ֵּתן‬ ‫ִּדין וְ ֶח ְׁשּבֹון‪ ,‬לִ ְפנֵ י ֶמלֶ ְך ַמלְ כֵ י ַה ְּמלָ כִ ים‬ ‫ַה ָּקדֹוׁש ָּברּוְך הּוא‪( ”:‬משנה אבות‬ ‫ג’‪ :‬א’)‬ ‫‪“ 151‬יְ ה‪-‬וָ ה ְּב ָחכְ ָמה יָ ַסד ָא ֶרץ ּכֹונֵ ן‬ ‫ָׁש ַמיִ ם ִּב ְתבּונָ ה‪ְּ :‬ב ַד ְעּתֹו ְּתהֹומֹות נִ ְב ָקעּו‬

‫ל‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫וזהו שנאמר‪“ :‬וַ ּיַ ְרא יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאת‬ ‫ַהּיָ ד ַהּגְ דֹלָ ה‪ ...‬וַ ּיַ ֲא ִמינּו ַּביהֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ְּוב ֶ‬ ‫מׁשה עַ ְבּדֹו”‪—133‬שלכאורה‬ ‫אינו מובן‪ ,‬כי בעת קריעת ים‬ ‫סוף היו כל ישראל במדריגה‬ ‫גדולה‪ ,‬וראתה שפחה על הים‬ ‫מה שלא ראו נביאים‪ 134‬ומה זה‬ ‫שכתוב אחר כך “וַ ּיַ ֲא ִמינּו ַּביהֹ‪-‬‬ ‫וָ ה”—שבאו ליד אמונה‪.‬‬ ‫[אמנם]‪ 135‬באמת שזכו‬ ‫למדריגת משה‪ ,‬שהיא האמונה‬ ‫מסוף דרגין שהם הירכיים‬ ‫עד החכמה‪“ ,‬וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה ֵמ ַאיִ ן‬ ‫ִּת ָּמצֵ א”‪— 136‬עד אין סוף ברוך‬ ‫הוא‪.‬‬ ‫שזהו אספקלריא המאירה‪,‬‬ ‫דרך משל‪ :‬מה שאנו רואים‬ ‫כשאדם רואה במראה‪ ,‬רואה‬ ‫את עצמו באיזה מראה—‬ ‫כשיש מתכות בצד השני מסך‬ ‫המבדיל‪ ,‬ואם לא יש מסך‬ ‫המבדיל רואה בתוך המראה‬ ‫לצד השני—עד אין סוף‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו‪“ :‬כל הנביאים נתנבאו‬ ‫שאינה‬ ‫באספקלריא‬ ‫מאירה”—שיש מסך מבדיל‬ ‫מצד השני ואינו רואה רק‬ ‫ס”ה‪ :‬ד’‪ ,‬ע” ‪ .529-530‬השווה‪:‬‬ ‫כנזכר לעיל בתורת האיגרות‪.]16[ ,‬‬ ‫ע”ח איגרת ר’ אברהם מקוליסק אל‬ ‫חסידי חו”ל [טבריה‪ ,‬תקס”ט]‪.‬‬ ‫‪“ 133‬וַ ּיַ ְרא יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאת ַהּיָ ד ַהּגְ דֹלָ ה‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ָׂשה יְ הֹו‪ָ-‬ה ְּב ִמצְ ַריִ ם וַ ּיִ ְיראּו ָה ָעם‬ ‫מׁשה‬ ‫ֶאת יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה וַ ּיַ ֲא ִמינּו ַּביהֹ‪-‬וָ ה ְּוב ֶ‬ ‫עַ ְבּדֹו‪( ”:‬שמות י”ד‪ :‬ל”א)‬ ‫‪134‬‬

‫מכילתא בשלח ט”ו‪ :‬ב’‬

‫‪135‬‬

‫(והנה)‬

‫‪“ 136‬וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה ֵמ ַאיִ ן ִּת ָּמצֵ א וְ ֵאי זֶ ה‬ ‫ְמקֹום ִּבי” (איוב כ”ח‪ :‬י”ב)‪,‬‬

‫את עצמו‪ ,‬כמו שהוא מאיזה‬ ‫מדה ומשרשו—משם רואה‬ ‫הנבואה‪.‬‬ ‫“ּב ַּמ ְר ָאה‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫וזהו שנאמר‪:‬‬ ‫ֵ‘אלָ יו’ ֶא ְתוַ ָּדע”—כמו שהוא‬ ‫ומאיזה מדה שהוא‪” ,‬ל ֹא כֵ ן‬ ‫ּומ ְר ֶאה וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫מׁשה‪ַ ...‬‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫עַ ְב ִּדי‬ ‫ְב ִחידֹת”—שהיא אספקלריא‬ ‫המאירה‪ ,‬שרואה מעבר לעבר‬ ‫עד אין סוף‪.‬‬ ‫ובעבור זה לא כתיב בתורה‬ ‫האמונה בלשון ציווי‪ ,‬שזהו‬ ‫דבר שאי אפשר‪ ,‬שזה הפרט—‬ ‫והתורה היא הכלל‪ ,‬ואם היה‬ ‫כתוב בתורה‪ :‬שיאמין בהו’יה‪,‬‬ ‫גם על אמונה זו צריך שיאמין‬ ‫להאמין—כערבא‬ ‫שצריך‬ ‫לערבא‪ .‬וזהו הפרט שהיא‬ ‫התורה שבעל פה‪ ,‬והוא היסוד‪,‬‬ ‫שעל אמונה שורים כל המדות‪.‬‬ ‫והנה אפילו תינוק של בית‬ ‫רבן‪ ,‬שכבר יודע שיש אל‪-‬הים‬ ‫שברא העולם—ומאמין זה‪,‬‬ ‫אבל עדיין האמונה חלושה‬ ‫בידו‪ ,‬וכשיבא לאיזה מדה‬ ‫ואיזה תאוה שהוא דבר האסור‬ ‫והוא נגד האמונה בודאי אין‬ ‫יכול לעמוד בה‪.‬‬ ‫עד שיגדל ויתחזק באמונתו‪,‬‬ ‫ואז שורים עליו כל המדות‬ ‫ומתחזק באמונתו לעשות‬ ‫רצון קונו ושלא לעשות דבר‬ ‫איסור‪ ,‬שירא מהו’יה ועושה כל‬ ‫המצות באהבה ויראה‪.‬‬ ‫ומה שנראה לאדם‪ ,‬שיש‬ ‫לו יותר אהבה ויראה‪ ,‬זהו‬ ‫הכל הולך אחר האמונה‪ ,‬מה‬ ‫שנתחזק בלבו יותר—זהו‬

‫היסוד שיכול לשרות עליו יותר‬ ‫השראת אהבה ויראה‪ .‬ומה‬ ‫שמתחזק יותר האמונה—‬ ‫מרגיש יותר אהבת הו’יה‬ ‫ויראתו על פניו‪.‬‬ ‫המדרש‪:‬‬ ‫פירוש‬ ‫וזהו‬ ‫“”וְ ֶאעֶ ְׂשָך”—[ואעשה אותך]‬ ‫בריה חדשה‪ ,‬שבאברהם כתיב‪:‬‬ ‫“וְ ֶה ֱא ִמן ַּביהֹו‪ָ-‬ה”‪ 137,‬ועל ידי‬ ‫אמונה [בא]‪ 138‬למעלה מכל‬ ‫המדות למדת ַ‘איִ ן’—שהיא‬ ‫בריה חדשה ממש‪.‬‬ ‫[כי צריך שיהיה] כל כך מושרש‬ ‫האמונה בלבו—שירגישו כל‬ ‫האברים והגוף‪ ,‬שהלב הוא‬ ‫המלך‪ ,‬והוא המחלק מזון וחיות‬ ‫לכל האברים‪ ,‬ממה שהאדם‬ ‫אוכל‪ ,‬לוקח התמצית‪ ,‬ואחר‬ ‫כך מחלק הדם לכל האברים‬ ‫שיהיה לה חיות‪.‬‬ ‫“ּב ֱאמּונָ תֹו יִ ְחיֶ ה”‪—139‬‬ ‫כך הוא ֶ‬ ‫שיהיה קבוע בלבו שישמע‬ ‫בלבבו שיהיה לב שומע—‬ ‫וירגישו כל האברים כולם‬ ‫גודל האמונה בהו’יה‪ ,‬והלב‬ ‫מבין בבינה‪“ ,‬וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה ֵמ ַאיִ ן‬ ‫ִּת ָּמצֵ א”‪ 140,‬עד אין סוף ברוך‬ ‫הוא וברוך שמו אמן סלה‪ ,‬ודי‬ ‫למבינים‪.‬‬

‫‪“ 137‬וְ ֶה ֱא ִמן ַּביהֹו‪ָ-‬ה וַ ּיַ ְח ְׁש ֶב ָה ּלֹו‬ ‫צְ ָד ָקה‪( ”:‬בראשית ט”ו‪ :‬ו’)‬ ‫‪138‬‬

‫(שיבא)‬

‫“הּנֵ ה עֻ ְּפלָ ה ל ֹא יָ ְׁש ָרה נַ ְפׁשֹו‬ ‫‪ִ 139‬‬ ‫ּבֹו וְ צַ ִּדיק ֶּב ֱאמּונָ תֹו יִ ְחיֶ ה‪( ”:‬חבקוק‬ ‫ב’‪ :‬ד’)‪.‬‬ ‫“וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה ֵמ ַאיִ ן ִּת ָּמצֵ א וְ ֵאי זֶ ה‬ ‫ְמקֹום ִּבי” (איוב כ”ח‪ :‬י”ב)‪,‬‬

‫‪140‬‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫ודברי פי חכם חן‪ .‬כה נזכה‬ ‫לחרות עולם‪ ,‬בביאת הגואל‬ ‫במהרה בימינו אמן סלה‪.‬‬

‫פרשת תשא‬ ‫במדרש‬ ‫הרב‬ ‫[פתח‬ ‫“וְ ֶאעֶ ְׂשָך לְ גֹוי ּגָ דֹול וַ ֲא ָב ֶרכְ ָך”‬ ‫“ואשימך”] לא נאמר‪ ,‬אלא‬ ‫“וְ ֶאעֶ ְׂשָך”—שאעשה אותך‬ ‫בריה חדשה‪.‬‬

‫והכלל ידוע‪ :‬שיסוד כל דבר‬ ‫הוא האמונה כמו שאמרו‪:‬‬ ‫“בא חבקוק והעמידן על‬ ‫ֶּב ֱאמּונָ תֹו‬ ‫‘וְ צַ ִּדיק‬ ‫אחת‪:‬‬ ‫יִ ְחיֶ ה’‪ 123‬ולכאורה קשה למה‬ ‫אינו כתוב בתורה על האמונה‬ ‫בלשון שיהיה ציווי‪ ,‬כמו‬ ‫שכתוב‪“ :‬וְ ָא ַה ְב ָּת ֵאת יְ הֹוָ ה‬ ‫את ֵּמ ֱאל ֹ‪-‬‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬היָך‪“ 124”,‬וְ יָ ֵר ָ‬ ‫ֱאל ֶ‬ ‫‪125‬‬ ‫ֶהיָך‪”.‬‬ ‫‪122‬‬

‫‪118‬‬ ‫‪119‬‬

‫“ׁש ְמעּו נָ א ְד ָב ָרי ִאם‬ ‫כתיב‪ִ :‬‬ ‫יִ ְהיֶ ה נְ ִב ֲיאכֶ ם יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ַּב ַּמ ְר ָאה‬ ‫ֵאלָ יו ֶא ְתוַ ָּדע‪ ...‬ל ֹא כֵ ן עַ ְב ִּדי‬ ‫מׁשה‪ֶּ ...‬פה ֶאל ֶּפה ֲא ַד ֶּבר‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫‪120‬‬ ‫ּומ ְר ֶאה וְ ל ֹא ְב ִחידֹת‪,”.‬‬ ‫ּבֹו ַ‬ ‫“ּב ַּמ ְר ָאה‬ ‫להבין ההפרש בין ַ‬ ‫ע”—ל”ּומ ְר ֶאה וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ֵאלָ יו ֶא ְתוַ ָּד‬ ‫ְב ִחידֹת‪ ”,‬ששניהן לשון מראה‪.‬‬ ‫כי הנה אמרו רבותינו זכרונם‬ ‫לברכה‪“ :‬כל הנביאים נתנבאו‬ ‫באספקלריא שאינה מאירה‬ ‫ומשה רבינו עליו השלום‬ ‫‪121‬‬ ‫באספקלריא המאירה‪”.‬‬

‫שבאמת האמונה‪ ,‬היא היסוד‬ ‫לבנות עליו כל הבנינים ושארי‬ ‫המדות‪ ,‬שבלתי אמונה אי‬ ‫אפשר לבוא לשום מדה אהבה‬ ‫או יראה‪ ,‬כי אם אינו מאמין—‬ ‫את מי יאהב או את מי יירא‪,‬‬ ‫וכשהאמונה חזקה‪ ,‬יכול להיות‬ ‫התפשטות המדות על ידי יסוד‬ ‫זה‪.‬‬ ‫“נַ עֲ ֶׂשה‬ ‫שכתוב‪:‬‬ ‫וזה‬ ‫וְ נִ ְׁש ָמע”‪—126‬מתחלה “נַ עֲ ֶׂשה”‬ ‫ואחר כך “נִ ְׁש ָמע”‪ .‬דאיתא‬ ‫‪127‬‬ ‫“אּודנִ ין”‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫בזהר הקדוש ירכין‬ ‫והאמונה נקראת ירכין—והם‬ ‫תמכין דאורייתא‪.‬‬

‫‪122‬‬

‫‪118‬‬

‫תנחומא לך לך‪ ,‬ג’‬

‫‪“ 119‬וְ ֶא ֶע ְׂשָך לְ גֹוי ּגָ דֹול וַ ֲא ָב ֶרכְ ָך‬ ‫וַ ֲאגַ ְּדלָ ה ְׁש ֶמָך וֶ ְהיֵ ה ְּב ָרכָ ה‪( ”:‬בראשית‬ ‫י”ב‪ :‬ב’)‬ ‫ֹאמר ִׁש ְמעּו נָ א ְד ָב ָרי ִאם יִ ְהיֶ ה‬ ‫‪“ 120‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫נְ ִב ֲיאכֶ ם יְ הֹוָ ה ַּב ַּמ ְר ָאה ֵאלָ יו ֶא ְתוַ ָּדע‬ ‫מׁשה‬ ‫ַּב ֲחלֹום ֲא ַד ֶּבר ּבֹו‪ :‬ל ֹא כֵ ן ַע ְב ִּדי ֶ‬ ‫ְּבכָ ל ֵּב ִיתי נֶ ֱא ָמן הּוא‪ֶּ :‬פה ֶאל ֶּפה ֲא ַד ֶּבר‬ ‫ּומ ְר ֶאה וְ ל ֹא ְב ִחידֹת ְּות ֻמנַ ת יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ּבֹו ַ‬ ‫אתם לְ ַד ֵּבר ְּב ַע ְב ִּדי‬ ‫ּדּוע ל ֹא יְ ֵר ֶ‬ ‫ּומ ַ‬ ‫ִיַּביט ַ‬ ‫מׁשה‪( ”:‬במדבר י”ב‪ :‬ו’ —ח’)‬ ‫ְב ֶ‬ ‫‪121‬‬

‫בבלי יבמות מ”ט ע”ב‬

‫שיש תורה שבכתב ותורה‬ ‫שבעל פה‪ ,‬שהוא כלל שהוא‬ ‫צריך לפרט‪ ,‬תורה שבכתב‬ ‫הוא דרך כלל—והפרט הוא‬ ‫תורה שבעל פה‪ ,‬איך לעשות‬ ‫כל המצות שבתורה‪ ,‬והוא‬ ‫אמונה—ומאמין שכה אמר‬ ‫הו’יה לעשות את כל המצות‪,‬‬ ‫ואחר כך בא לתורה שבכתב‪.‬‬ ‫“ּבינָ ה‬ ‫כמאמר הזהר הקדוש‪ִ :‬‬ ‫לִ ָּבא ָּובּה ַהּלֵ ב ֵמ ִבין”‪—128,‬‬ ‫שעל ידי אמונה בא לידי לב‬ ‫שומע‪ ,‬שהלב ישמע‪ ,‬ויבוא‬ ‫לידי התבוננות—שהוא ‘בינא’‬ ‫לבא‪ ,‬ואחר כך ל’חכמה’—‬ ‫תורה שבכתב‪“ ,‬וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה‬ ‫‪129‬‬ ‫ֵמ ַ’איִ ן’ ִּת ָּמצֵ א”‪.‬‬ ‫אם כן הולך בזה האמונה מסוף‬ ‫דרגין לריש דרגין‪ ,‬וזהו‪ :‬ירכין‪,‬‬ ‫“אּודנִ ין”‪ 130,‬שהאמונה הם‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ירכין‪ ,‬פי’ יסוד—כמו הירכים‬ ‫שהגוף עומד עליהם‪ ,‬נמצא‬ ‫הירכים הם יסוד‪ ,‬ויבוא לידי‬ ‫שמיעה—הלב שומע‪ ,‬וזה‬ ‫“נַ עֲ ֶׂשה וְ נִ ְׁש ָמע”‪—131‬העשיית‬ ‫המצות צריך להיות באמונה‬ ‫‪132‬‬ ‫ואח”כ בא לידי שמיעה‪.‬‬

‫בבלי מכות כ”ד ע”א‬

‫“הּנֵ ה עֻ ְּפלָ ה ל ֹא יָ ְׁש ָרה נַ ְפׁשֹו‬ ‫‪ִ 123‬‬ ‫ּבֹו וְ צַ ִּדיק ֶּב ֱאמּונָ תֹו יִ ְחיֶ ה‪( ”:‬חבקוק‬ ‫ב’‪ :‬ד’)‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬היָך‬ ‫‪“ 124‬וְ ָא ַה ְב ָּת ֵאת יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱאל ֶ‬ ‫ְּבכָ ל לְ ָב ְבָך ְּובכָ ל נַ ְפ ְׁשָך ְּובכָ ל ְמא ֶֹדָך‪”:‬‬ ‫(דברים ו’‪ :‬ה’)‬ ‫‪“ 125‬ל ֹא ְת ַקּלֵ ל ֵח ֵרׁש וְ לִ ְפנֵ י עִ ּוֵ ר ל ֹא‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬היָך ֲאנִ י יְ הֹ‪-‬‬ ‫את ֵּמ ֱאל ֶ‬ ‫ִת ֵּתן ִמכְ ׁשֹל וְ יָ ֵר ָ‬ ‫וָ ה‪( :‬ויקרא י”ט‪ :‬י”ד)‬ ‫‪“ 126‬וַ ּיִ ַּקח ֵס ֶפר ַה ְּב ִרית וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא ְּב ָאזְ נֵ י‬ ‫ֹאמרּו ּכֹל ֲא ֶׁשר ִּד ֶּבר יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ָהעָ ם וַ ּי ְ‬ ‫נַ עֲ ֶׂשה וְ נִ ְׁש ָמע‪( ”:‬שמות כ”ד‪ :‬ז’)‬ ‫‪127‬‬

‫כ‬

‫זהר חלק ג’‪ :‬קל”ח ע”ב‬

‫‪128‬‬

‫תיקוני הזהר‪ ,‬הקדמה י”ז ע”א‬

‫“וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה ֵמ ַאיִ ן ִּת ָּמצֵ א וְ ֵאי זֶ ה‬ ‫ְמקֹום ִּבי” (איוב כ”ח‪ :‬י”ב)‬

‫‪129‬‬

‫‪130‬‬

‫זהר חלק ג’‪ :‬קל”ח ע”ב‬

‫‪“ 131‬וַ ּיִ ַּקח ֵס ֶפר ַה ְּב ִרית וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא ְּב ָאזְ נֵ י‬ ‫ֹאמרּו ּכֹל ֲא ֶׁשר ִּד ֶּבר יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ָהעָ ם וַ ּי ְ‬ ‫נַ עֲ ֶׂשה וְ נִ ְׁש ָמע‪( ”:‬שמות כ”ד‪ :‬ז’)‬ ‫‪ 132‬על אי‪-‬הבנת “אמונה פשוטה”‬ ‫ותפקיד המיוחד של “האמונה מסוף‬ ‫דרגין לריש דרגין” בתורת הקאליסקר‪,‬‬ ‫עיין שם ברעיה חרן‪“ ,‬משנתו של ר’‬ ‫אברהם מקאליסק‪ :‬הדרך לדביקות‬ ‫כנחלתם של בני העלייה”‪ ,‬תרביץ‬

‫י‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫וזהו פירוש‪“ :‬עֹוז וְ ָה ָדר‬ ‫בּוׁשּה”—ש”עֹוז וְ ָה ָדר” הוא‬ ‫לְ ָ‬ ‫נסתר ממנו ממושכן ומוחבא‬ ‫בכמה ‘לבושים’ שונים‪ .‬העצה‬ ‫לזה‪“ :‬וַ ִּת ְׂש ַחק לְ יֹום ַא ֲחרֹון”—‬ ‫ש’ישחק’ מדותיו וישברם‬ ‫עד אשר דק כנזכר לעיל‪ ,‬עד‬ ‫שיגיע “לְ יֹום ַא ֲחרֹון”‪ ,‬דא‬ ‫היא עלמא עילאה—הנקראת‬ ‫“לְ יֹום ַא ֲחרֹון”‪ ,‬מתתא לעילא‪,‬‬ ‫לשרשם—נמחק‬ ‫וכשתגיע‬ ‫הכל ויוצא לחירות עולם‪.‬‬ ‫ועל פי זה נוכל לפרש הפסוק‪:‬‬ ‫“רּבֹות עָ ִׂש ָית ַא ָּתה יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ּומ ְח ְׁשב ֶֹתיָך‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הי נִ ְפלְ א ֶֹתיָך ַ‬ ‫ֱאל ַ‬ ‫ֵאלֵ ינּו”‪ 106,‬דהנה באמת ידוע‬ ‫ונזכר בכל ספרי הקודש‪ :‬שכל‬ ‫תכלית בריאת העולמות—היה‬ ‫בשביל זה העולם‪ ,‬ותכלית‬ ‫האדם הנברא בצלם אל‪-‬‬ ‫הים—לקשר הכל מתתא‬ ‫‪107‬‬ ‫לעילא‪.‬‬ ‫בין על פי מה שאמרו רבותינו‬ ‫זכרונם לברכה‪ :‬שברא העולם‬ ‫להשתעשע עם הצדיקים‪ ,‬ובין‬ ‫לפי מה שאמרו‪ :‬שברא העולם‬ ‫בכדי לגלות מדותיו וטבעו‬ ‫הטוב להטיב—כי על כן מי‬ ‫יקרא רחום וחנון וכו’‪ .‬על כל‬ ‫האופנים תכלית הבריאה היה‪:‬‬ ‫בשביל האדם שיברורו חלק‬

‫ֹ‪-‬הי‬ ‫“רּבֹות ָע ִׂש ָית ַא ָּתה יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱאל ַ‬ ‫‪ַ 106‬‬ ‫ּומ ְח ְׁשב ֶֹתיָך ֵאלֵ ינּו ֵאין ֲערְֹך‬ ‫נִ ְפלְ א ֶֹתיָך ַ‬ ‫ֵאלֶ יָך ַאּגִ ָידה וַ ֲא ַד ֵּב ָרה ָעצְ מּו ִמ ַּס ֵּפר‪”:‬‬ ‫(תהלים מ’‪ :‬ו’)‬ ‫‪ 107‬השווה‪“ :‬שתכלית בריאת האדם‬ ‫הוא בכדי שיעלה העולמות לשרשן‪,‬‬ ‫דהיינו שמחזירין לאין מקודם”‪ ,‬עיין‬ ‫שם ברבי דב באר‪ ,‬המגיד ממזריץ‪,‬‬ ‫מגיד דבריו ליעקב‪ ,‬סימן ס”ו‪:‬‬

‫הטוב וכו’‬ ‫כנזכר בעץ החיים‪“ 108‬כשעלה‬ ‫ברצונו הפשוט” וכו’‪ ,‬וכמה‬ ‫צמצומים וכמה השתשלות‬ ‫[היו] עד שנברא האדם‪,‬‬ ‫וצמצם בו חיותו כביכול‪ ,‬כדי‬ ‫שיוכל להעלות כל הדברים‬ ‫לשרשן אל הרצון העליון‪.‬‬ ‫ואף שהוא סוף מעשה‪ ,‬מכל‬ ‫מקום הוא במחשבה תחלה‪,‬‬ ‫והראיה לזה‪ :‬שהגם שנברא‬ ‫העולם בכ”ה באלול‪ ,‬אף על פי‬ ‫כן נאמר בראש השנה‪“ :‬היום‬ ‫הרת עולם”—זה היום תחלת‬ ‫מעשיך‪ 109,‬ועל כן יצר את‬ ‫האדם ב’חכמה’ שהוא נקודה‬ ‫עילאה‪ ,‬למען יוכל לקשר‬ ‫ולהשיב הכל אל הרצון לשרשן‬ ‫העליון‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו‪“ :‬יְ ִהי כְ בֹוד יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה לְ עֹולָ ם‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ַמח יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ְּב ַמעֲ ָׂשיו”‪—110‬‬ ‫והשמחה מתעורר על ידי‬ ‫בחינת החכמה רצוף אהבה‬ ‫כידוע ליודעי חכמה נסתרה‪.‬‬ ‫“ּבנִ י ִאם ָחכַ ם לִ ֶּבָך יִ ְׂש ַמח‬ ‫וזה ְ‬ ‫‪111‬‬ ‫ו”ּבן ָחכָ ם‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫לִ ִּבי גַ ם ָאנִ י”‪,‬‬ ‫יְ ַׂש ַּמח ָאב”‪ 112‬שעל ידי החכמה‬ ‫והתענוג אהבת הבן על האב‪,‬‬

‫‪ 108‬ר’ חיים וויטל‪ ,‬עץ החיים ‪,‬שער‬ ‫א’‪ :‬ענף ב’‪.‬‬ ‫בבלי ראש השנה כ”ז ע”א ועיין‬ ‫שם במהרש”א‬

‫‪109‬‬

‫‪“ 110‬יְ ִהי כְ בֹוד יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה לְ עֹולָ ם יִ ְׂש ַמח‬ ‫יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ְּב ַמעֲ ָׂשיו‪( ”:‬תהלים ק”ד‪ :‬ל”א)‬ ‫‪111‬‬

‫(משלי כ”ג‪ :‬ט”ו)‬

‫“מ ְׁשלֵ י ְׁשֹלמֹה ֵּבן ָחכָ ם יְ ַׂש ַּמח ָאב‬ ‫‪ִ 112‬‬ ‫ֵּובן ּכְ ִסיל ּתּוגַ ת ִאּמֹו‪( ”:‬משלי י’‪ :‬א’)‬

‫שמעלה הכל לשרשן העליון‬ ‫על ידי החכמה‪ ,‬ומעורר שמחה‬ ‫רבה למעלה ונמחק כל הדינין‪,‬‬ ‫ושם אין דינין כלל כידוע‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו הכל‪ ,‬על ידי ישראל‬ ‫שנקראו ראשית‪ ,‬ועל ידי‬ ‫החכמה והתורה שנקראו‬ ‫ראשית‪ ,‬שעל ידי התורה הוא‬ ‫קיום והעמדה של כל העולמות‪,‬‬ ‫כמאמר רבינו זכרונם לברכה‪:‬‬ ‫“שכל העולמות שהיו עומדים‬ ‫צפופים ליום השלישי אם‬ ‫יקבלו ישראל את התורה‬ ‫‪113‬‬ ‫מוטב”‪.‬‬ ‫בּוׁשּה”—‬ ‫וזהו‪“ :‬עֹוז וְ ָה ָדר לְ ָ‬ ‫‪114‬‬ ‫ואין “עֹוז” אלא תורה‪,‬‬ ‫כשאדם מלביש את עצמו על‬ ‫ידי התורה והחכמה “וַ ִּת ְׂש ַחק‬ ‫לְ יֹום ַא ֲחרֹון”—שהוא גורם‬ ‫שמחה גדולה לעולם העליון‪,‬‬ ‫‪115‬‬ ‫שמחזיר הכל לשורשו‪.‬‬ ‫מֹוׁשל יִ ְר ַאת‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫וזהו‪“ :‬צַ ִּדיק‬ ‫ֹלהים”‪—116‬שהקדוש ברוך‬ ‫ֱא ִ‬ ‫הוא גוזר והוא מבטל‪ 117,‬מחמת‬ ‫בתשובה—ומחזיר‬ ‫שישוב‬ ‫הכל לשרשן‪ ,‬בדחילו ורחימו‬ ‫ובחכמה—עד הגיעו לעולם‬ ‫העליון עלמא דחירותא‪.‬‬

‫‪113‬‬

‫בבלי שבת פ”ח ע”א‬

‫‪114‬‬

‫שיר השירים רבה ב’‪ :‬י’‬

‫‪ 115‬השווה‪ :‬להשיב היש לשרשו‬ ‫במדת האין‪ ,‬עיין שם ברבי דב באר‪,‬‬ ‫המגיד ממזריץ‪ ,‬מגיד דבריו ליעקב‪,‬‬ ‫סימנים ל’‪ ,‬ו’‪.‬‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל לִ י ִד ֶּבר צּור‬ ‫“א ַמר ֱאל ֵ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫מֹוׁשל יִ ְר ַאת‬ ‫מֹוׁשל ָּב ָא ָדם צַ ִּדיק ֵ‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֵ‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים‪( ”:‬שמואל ב’ כ”ג‪ :‬ג’)‬ ‫ֱאל ִ‬ ‫‪116‬‬

‫‪117‬‬

‫בבלי מועד קטן טז ע”ב‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫ַה ְס ֵּתר ַא ְס ִּתיר”‪.‬‬

‫‪94‬‬

‫שאלופו של עולם‪ 95‬יושב בסתר‬ ‫בכמה לבושים—מהתגברות‬ ‫החומר‪ ,‬ומה גם מהתגברות‬ ‫שבע מדות רעות רחמנא‬ ‫בשם‬ ‫לצלנא—המכונים‬ ‫“שבעה עממין”‪ ,‬שנצטוינו‬ ‫עליהם‪“ :‬ל ֹא ְת ַחּיֶ ה ּכָ ל נְ ָׁש ָמה‪:‬‬ ‫ּכִ י ַה ֲח ֵרם ַּת ֲח ִר ֵימם”‪ 96,‬שהם‬ ‫מתנגדים תמיד אל נקודת‬ ‫החיות הפנימית שבאדם‪.‬‬ ‫וזה הגלות של החיות הרוחנית‬ ‫משבעה מדות ותולדותיהם‪ ,‬וכן‬ ‫בגשמי גלות שבעים אומות—‬ ‫מסתעפים מהכוחות הנזכר‬ ‫לעיל‪.‬‬ ‫כי כל דבר זר וסטרא אחרא‪,‬‬ ‫היא מעולם הפירוד—מתחלק‬ ‫תמיד‪ ,‬אבל דבר שבקדושה—‬ ‫הכל מתיחד לאחד‪ ,‬באחדות‬ ‫הפשוט‪ ,‬וזהו‪ּ“ :‬כִ י ֵחלֶ ק יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫עַ ּמֹו”‪—97‬חלק אחד “עם”‬ ‫אחד‪ ,‬להתיחד ביחודא‪“ .‬ל ֹא‬ ‫כֵ ן ָה ְר ָׁשעִ ים‪ּ...‬כַ ּמֹץ”‪ 98‬תשאם‬

‫‪“ 94‬וְ ָאנֹכִ י ַה ְס ֵּתר ַא ְס ִּתיר ָּפנַ י ַּבּיֹום‬ ‫ַההּוא ַעל ּכָ ל ָה ָר ָעה ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ָׂשה ּכִ י‬ ‫ֹלהים ֲא ֵח ִרים‪( ”:‬דברים‬ ‫ָפנָ ה ֶאל ֱא ִ‬ ‫ל”א‪ :‬י”ח)‬ ‫‪95‬‬

‫בראשית רבה כ’‪ :‬ב’‬

‫“רק ֵמ ָע ֵרי ָה ַע ִּמים ָה ֵאּלֶ ה ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫‪ַ 96‬‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬היָך נ ֵֹתן לְ ָך נַ ֲחלָ ה ל ֹא ְת ַחּיֶ ה‬ ‫יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱאל ֶ‬ ‫ּכָ ל נְ ָׁש ָמה‪ּ :‬כִ י ַה ֲח ֵרם ַּת ֲח ִר ֵימם ַה ִח ִּתי‬ ‫יְבּוסי‬ ‫וְ ָה ֱאמ ִֹרי ַהּכְ נַ ֲענִ י וְ ַה ְּפ ִרּזִ י ַה ִחּוִ י וְ ַה ִ‬ ‫ֹלהיָך‪( :‬דברים כ’‪:‬‬ ‫ּכַ ֲא ֶׁשר צִ ּוְ ָך יְ הֹוָ ה ֱא ֶ‬ ‫ט”ז‪-‬י”ז)‬ ‫‪ּ“ 97‬כִ י ֵחלֶ ק יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ַעּמֹו יַ ֲעקֹב ֶח ֶבל‬ ‫נַ ֲחלָ תֹו‪( ”:‬דברים ל”ב‪ :‬ט’)‬ ‫‪“ 98‬ל ֹא כֵ ן ָה ְר ָׁש ִעים ּכִ י ִאם ּכַ ּמֹץ ְַא ֶׁשר‬ ‫רּוח‪( ”:‬תהלים א’‪ :‬ד’)‬ ‫ִּת ְּד ֶפּנּו ַ‬

‫“יִ ְת ָּפ ְרדּו ּכָ ל ּפֹעֲ לֵ י ָאוֶ ן”‬ ‫“א ֶׁשר‬ ‫דפירודא‪ֲ ,‬‬ ‫בעלמא‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬היָך א ָֹתם לְ כֹל‬ ‫ָחלַ ק יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱאל ֶ‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫ָהעַ ִּמים‪”.‬‬

‫‪99‬‬

‫וזהו כלל גדול בעבודת השם‬ ‫יתברך‪ :‬לפדות נפשו וחיותו‬ ‫הפנימית ולנקותה מהמדות‬ ‫החיצוניות—ולהוציא המשכן‬ ‫לאורה חירות עולם‪.‬‬ ‫והנה באמת כשבעל המשכון‬ ‫הוא מטיב עם בעל חובו והוא‬ ‫תקיף ממנו מניח משכונו [אצל‬ ‫אלוה]‪[ 101‬שיסגירהו]‪ 102‬בביתו‬ ‫במקום מיוחד לבל יגע בו‪ ,‬עד‬ ‫יעלה בידו לשלם חובו‪ ,‬ואז‬ ‫יחזור להשתמש במשכונו‪.‬‬ ‫ואז גאולה תהיה לו‪ ,‬כמאמר‬ ‫הבעל שם טוב זכותו יגן עלינו‪:‬‬ ‫“ק ְר ָבה ֶאל נַ ְפ ִׁשי גְ ָאלָ ּה”‪—103‬‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫שכשם שיש גאולה כללית‬ ‫לכלל ישראל כן יש גאולה‬ ‫פרטית לכל נפש בישראל‪.‬‬ ‫ואף על פי שיודע האדם בעצמו‬ ‫גסותו וחומריותו‪ ,‬אף על פי כן‬ ‫צריך להיות תמיד כל חפצו‬

‫‪ּ“ 99‬כִ י ִהּנֵ ה א ֶֹיְביָך יְ הֹוָ ה ּכִ י ִהּנֵ ה א ֶֹיְביָך‬ ‫ֹאבדּו יִ ְת ָּפ ְרדּו ּכָ ל ּפֹעֲ לֵ י ָאוֶ ן‪( ”:‬תהלים‬ ‫י ֵ‬ ‫צ”ב‪ :‬י’)‬ ‫‪100‬‬ ‫“ּופן ִּת ָּׂשא עֵ ינֶ יָך ַה ָּׁש ַמיְ ָמה וְ ָר ִא ָית‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫ֶאת ַה ֶּׁש ֶמׁש וְ ֶאת ַהּיָ ֵר ַח וְ ֶאת ַהּכֹוכָ ִבים‬ ‫ּכֹל צְ ָבא ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם וְ נִ ַּד ְח ָּת וְ ִה ְׁש ַּת ֲחוִ ָית‬ ‫לָ ֶהם וַ עֲ ַב ְד ָּתם ֲא ֶׁשר ָחלַ ק יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬היָך א ָֹתם לְ כֹל ָהעַ ִּמים ַּת ַחת ּכָ ל‬ ‫ֱאל ֶ‬ ‫ַה ָּׁש ָמיִ ם‪( ”:‬דברים ד’‪ :‬י”ט)‬ ‫‪101‬‬

‫(אצלו)‬

‫‪102‬‬

‫(לא יסגור)‬

‫“ק ְר ָבה ֶאל נַ ְפ ִׁשי גְ ָאלָ ּה לְ ַמעַ ן א ַֹיְבי‬ ‫‪ָ 103‬‬ ‫ְּפ ֵדנִ י‪( ”:‬תהלים ס”ט‪ :‬י”ט)‬

‫ט‬

‫ורצונו בכל לבבו תמיד—‬ ‫למצוא תרופה לנפשו להוציאה‬ ‫לחירות‪ ,‬בשברון גופו ומדותיו‬ ‫החומריים—עד שיגיע לשרשן‬ ‫לעולם העליון הנקרא עלמא‬ ‫דחירות‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו‪ּ” :‬כִ י ִת ְקנֶ ה עֶ ֶבד עִ ְב ִרי‬ ‫ֵׁשׁש ָׁשנִ ים יַ עֲ בֹד”—במדותיו‪,‬‬ ‫להגביר הטוב על הרע‪ .‬עד‬ ‫“ּוב ְּׁש ִבעִ ת יֵ צֵ א לַ ָח ְפ ִׁשי‬ ‫שיגיע ַ‬ ‫ִחּנָ ם” —ששם עלמא דחירות‬ ‫ושורש המדות‪ ,‬ואין הדינין‬ ‫נמתקין אלא בשרשן‪ ,‬כידוע‬ ‫ליודעי חכמה נסתרה‪.‬‬ ‫וזה שעשה משה אפילו במעשה‬ ‫העגל—שטחן “עַ ד ֲא ֶׁשר ָּדק‬ ‫וַ ּיִ זֶ ר עַ ל ְּפנֵ י ַה ַּמיִ ם”‪—104‬כלומר‪:‬‬ ‫ששחק את הרע לגמרי עד‬ ‫שהביאו בדקות גדול—שהעלן‬ ‫לשרשן ונמתקו הדינין‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו בחינת תשובה‪ ,‬כאשר‬ ‫דברנו מזה כמה פעמים‪ ,‬וכמה‬ ‫“ּוב ַּק ְׁש ֶּתם ִמ ָּׁשם ֶאת‬ ‫שכתוב‪ִ :‬‬ ‫‪105‬‬ ‫את”‪,‬‬ ‫ּומצָ ָ‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬היָך ָ‬ ‫יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱאל ֶ‬ ‫“מ ָּׁשם”—היינו מקום רחוק‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫והתחלקות חס ושלום‪ ,‬אף‬ ‫על פי כן ומצאת “ּכִ י ִת ְד ְר ֶׁשּנּו‬ ‫ְּבכָ ל לְ ָב ְבָך ְּובכָ ל נַ ְפ ֶׁשָך”‪ ,‬כאשר‬ ‫יחפש איש אחר אבידתו‬ ‫לגאלה מאחרים‪ ,‬והו’יה יהיה‬ ‫בעוזרו‪.‬‬

‫‪“ 104‬וַ ּיִ ַּקח ֶאת ָהעֵ גֶ ל ֲא ֶׁשר עָ ׂשּו וַ ּיִ ְׂשרֹף‬ ‫ָּב ֵאׁש וַ ּיִ ְט ַחן ַעד ֲא ֶׁשר ָּדק וַ ּיִ זֶ ר ַעל ְּפנֵ י‬ ‫ַה ַּמיִ ם וַ ּיַ ְׁשק ֶאת ְּבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‪( ”:‬שמות‬ ‫ל”ב‪ :‬כ’)‬ ‫‪105‬‬ ‫“ּוב ַּק ְׁש ֶּתם ִמ ָּׁשם ֶאת יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫את ּכִ י ִת ְד ְר ֶׁשּנּו ְּבכָ ל לְ ָב ְבָך‬ ‫ּומצָ ָ‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬היָך ָ‬ ‫ֱאל ֶ‬ ‫ְּובכָ ל נַ ְפ ֶׁשָך‪( ”:‬דברים ד’‪ :‬כ”ט)‬

‫ח‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫ֹ‪-‬הים‬ ‫“א ֶׁשר ָּב ָרא ֱאל ִ‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫וזהו‬ ‫לַ ֲעׂשֹות”‪—80‬שהאציל המאציל‬ ‫העליון מנהירו עילאה‪ ,‬רעותא‬ ‫וחדות דכולא‪ ,‬שיוכלו הצדיקים‬ ‫שבדור לעשות העשיה הזאת‪,‬‬ ‫בהתקשרות לעולם העליון‬ ‫ביחוד המדות‪ ,‬ונעשה הכל‬ ‫רחמים גמורים להמשיכם על‬ ‫העולם כולו‪.‬‬ ‫“מי יְ ַמּלֵ ל ּגְ בּורֹות‬ ‫על דרך ִ‬ ‫יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה”‪ 81‬מלשון “מוללין‬ ‫מלילות”‪ 82,‬כנזכר בזהר‬ ‫הקדוש‪ 83‬שהצדיקים יכולים‬ ‫להמתיק הדינים שהם בחינת‬ ‫גבורות‪.‬‬ ‫והנה ידוע ליודעי חן‪:‬‬ ‫כשנכללין גבורה בחסד או‬ ‫חסד בגבורה—שהיא בחינת‬ ‫הולדה‪ ,‬שמחסד נולדה הגבורה‪,‬‬ ‫כדרך משל‪ :‬אם אני אוהב את‬ ‫אחד באהבה אמיתית‪ ,‬וכשאני‬ ‫רואה שבא אחד להרע לו נולד‬ ‫בי מדת הגבורה—למנוע את‬ ‫זה מלהרע לו‪ ,‬ולנקום ממנו או‬ ‫להיפוך‪ ,‬ודי למבינים‪.‬‬ ‫והנה מי שהוא אוהב את‬ ‫הו’יה באמת‪ ,‬ממילא תבער‬ ‫בו האהבה ויכול להתגבר על‬ ‫עוברי רצונו לאבדם מן העולם‪,‬‬ ‫וכמו שמצינו בגמרא הקדושה‬ ‫ר’ שמעון בן יוחא ובנו רבי‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים ֶאת יֹום ַה ְּׁש ִב ִיעי‬ ‫‪“ 80‬וַ ָיְב ֶרְך ֱאל ִ‬ ‫וַ יְ ַק ֵּדׁש אֹתֹו ּכִ י בֹו ָׁש ַבת ִמּכָ ל ְמלַ אכְ ּתֹו‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים לַ ֲעׂשֹות‪(”:‬בראשית‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ָּב ָרא ֱאל ִ‬ ‫ב’‪ :‬ג’)‬ ‫“מי יְ ַמּלֵ ל ּגְ בּורֹות יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה יַ ְׁש ִמ ַיע ּכָ ל‬ ‫‪ִ 81‬‬ ‫ְּת ִהּלָ תֹו‪( ”:‬תהלים ק”ו‪ :‬ב’)‬ ‫‪82‬‬

‫בבלי ביצה יב ע”ב‬

‫‪83‬‬

‫זהר חלק א’‪ ,‬מ”א ע”א‬

‫אלעזר וזיכרונם יגגנו עלינו‬ ‫כשיצאו מהמערה וראו שבני‬ ‫‪84‬‬ ‫אדם עוסקים בחיי שעה וכו’‪.‬‬ ‫ופעם שנית כישצאו—מה‬ ‫דמחי רבי אלעזר מסי ר’ שמעון‬ ‫בן יוחא מחמת היותו במעלה‬ ‫עליונה יותר—שיכול לצמצם‬ ‫הגבורה ולמללה זעיר זעיר‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו‪“ :‬וְ ַא ְב ָר ָהם ֶּבן ְמ ַאת ָׁשנָ ה”‬ ‫—שעלה במעלה עליונה‬ ‫‪85‬‬ ‫למעלה מן הזמן והמדות‪,‬‬ ‫“ּב ִהּוָ לֶ ד לֹו ֵאת יִ צְ ָחק ְּבנֹו”—‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫שהוא בחינת גבורה‪ ,‬ואחר‬ ‫כך‪“ :‬וַ ּיָ ָמל ַא ְב ָר ָהם ֶאת יִ צְ ָחק‬ ‫“מי יְ ַמּלֵ ל‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ְּבנֹו”—על דרך‬ ‫ּגְ בּורֹות יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה” כנזכר לעיל‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו “וַ יהֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֵּב ַרְך ֶאת ַא ְב ָר ָהם‬ ‫ַּבּכֹל”—שעלה למעלה למעלה‬ ‫בהשגה עליונה ביחודא עילאה‪,‬‬ ‫לשתף מדת הרחמים עם מדת‬ ‫הדין ונעשה “הכל” רחמים‬ ‫גמורים‪.‬‬ ‫וכן נזכה כלנו לעתיד לבוא‬ ‫יהיה יום “לַ יהֹ‪-‬וָ ה ל ֹא יֹום וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫לָ יְ לָ ה”‪—86‬כי אם בחינת בין‬ ‫השמשות כנזכר לעיל‪ ,‬ונעלה‬ ‫מדרגא לדרגא עד שיהיה הכל‬ ‫רחמים גמורים ושפע רצון‬ ‫וברכה עליונה‪ ,‬לנו ולכל ישראל‬ ‫אמן סלה‪.‬‬ ‫‪84‬‬

‫בבלי שבת ל”ג ע”ב‬

‫‪ 85‬השווה‪ :‬למעלה מן הזמן והמדות‪,‬‬ ‫עיין שם ברבי דב באר‪ ,‬המגיד ממזריץ‪,‬‬ ‫מגיד דבריו ליעקב‪ ,‬סימנים ס”ט‪ ,‬ע”ב‪,‬‬ ‫פ”ו‪ ,‬ק”י‪.‬‬ ‫‪“ 86‬וְ ָהיָ ה יֹום ֶא ָחד הּוא יִ ּוָ ַדע לַ יהֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ל ֹא יֹום וְ ל ֹא לָ יְ לָ ה וְ ָהיָ ה לְ ֵעת ֶע ֶרב יִ ְהיֶ ה‬ ‫אֹור‪( ”:‬זכריה י”ד‪ ,‬ז’)‬

‫פרשת משפטים‬ ‫פתח הרב בפסוק‪ּ“ :‬כִ י ִת ְקנֶ ה‬ ‫עֶ ֶבד עִ ְב ִרי ֵׁשׁש ָׁשנִ ים יַ ֲעבֹד‬ ‫‪87‬‬ ‫ַּוב ְּׁש ִבעִ ת יֵ צֵ א לַ ָח ְפ ִׁשי ִחּנָ ם‪”:‬‬ ‫והמשיך הכתוב‪“ :‬עֹוז וְ ָה ָדר‬ ‫‪88‬‬ ‫בּוׁשּה וַ ִּת ְׂש ַחק לְ יֹום ַא ֲחרֹון‪”:‬‬ ‫לְ ָ‬ ‫כי הנה ידוע מאמר רבינו‬ ‫זכרונם לברכה‪ 89‬על פסוק‪:‬‬ ‫קּודי ַה ִּמ ְׁשּכָ ן ִמ ְׁשּכַ ן‬ ‫“אּלֶ ה ְפ ֵ‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫ָה עֵ ֻד ת ” ‪ —9 0‬ש נ ת מ ש כ ן‬ ‫בעוונתינו הרבים‪ ,‬וכן אמרו‪:‬‬ ‫“מקדש איקרי משכן”‪—91,‬‬ ‫כשגברו העוונות ורבו החובות‬ ‫נתמשכן בעוונתינו הרבים‪ ,‬ועל‬ ‫כן אנחנו בגלות בגשמיות‪.‬‬ ‫וכן על זה הדרך ברוחניות‪,‬‬ ‫כאשר יבחין האדם בעצמו בכל‬ ‫בחינותיו‪ ,‬כמו שנזכר בספרים‬ ‫“שכל מה שהיה במשכן יש‬ ‫‪92‬‬ ‫באדם”‪.‬‬ ‫והעיקר להבין הענין‪ ,‬כי הנה‬ ‫באמת כמו שיש גלות הגשמי‪,‬‬ ‫כן יותר ויותר הגלות הרוחני—‬ ‫חיות הפנימי שהיא אסורה‬ ‫וכבושה בגולה בכמה לבושים‬ ‫והסתרים‪ ,‬כמאמר אסתר מן‬ ‫התורה מנין‪ 93,‬שנאמר‪“ :‬וְ ָאנֹכִ י‬

‫‪87‬‬

‫שמות כ”א‪ :‬ב’‬

‫‪88‬‬

‫משלי ל”א‪ :‬כ”ה‬

‫‪89‬‬

‫תנחומא פקודי ה’‬

‫קּודי ַה ִּמ ְׁשּכָ ן ִמ ְׁשּכַ ן ָהעֵ ֻדת‬ ‫“אּלֶ ה ְפ ֵ‬ ‫‪ֵ 90‬‬ ‫מׁשה עֲ ב ַֹדת ַהלְ וִ ּיִ ם‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ֻּפ ַּקד ַעל ִּפי ֶ‬ ‫ְּביַ ד ִא ָית ָמר ֶּבן ַא ֲהרֹן ַהּכ ֵֹהן‪( ”:‬שמות‬ ‫ל”ח‪ :‬כ”א)‬ ‫‪91‬‬

‫בבלי עירובין ב’ ע”א‬

‫‪ 92‬עיין שם בזהר חלק ב’ קס”ב ע”ב‪,‬‬ ‫תיקוני זהרת הקדמה י”ג ע”א‬ ‫‪93‬‬

‫בבלי חולין קל”ט ע”ב‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫וידוע הוא ליודעי חכמת‬ ‫נסתרת‪ :‬מהו מדת יום ומהו‬ ‫מדת לילה‪ ,‬כי “יֹום” הוא‬ ‫“אֹור” ממדת אהבה‪ ,‬שהכל‬ ‫אוהבים את האור ומקרבים את‬ ‫עצמם אליו‪ .‬ומדת יראה הוא‬ ‫מכונה בשם “לָ יְ לָ ה” וחשכות‪,‬‬ ‫ומתרחקים‬ ‫שהכל יראים‬ ‫ממנה‪.‬‬ ‫ובדרך משל‪ :‬מה שאני ירא‬ ‫ממנו אני מרחיק את עצמי‬ ‫ממנו‪ ,‬שלא להמציא לפניו בכל‬ ‫שעה‪ ,‬מחמת יראתו‪ .‬אבל למי‬ ‫שאני אוהבו באמת באהבה‬ ‫שלימה‪ ,‬תמיד אני משתוקק‬ ‫להיות עמו יחד בחבורתו‪.‬‬ ‫וידוע הוא‪ :‬דלא אפשר יום בלא‬ ‫לילה ולילה בלא יום‪ ,‬וכן הוא‬ ‫במדות הנזכרים‪.‬‬ ‫דרך משל‪ :‬אם הוא במדת‬ ‫אהבה לבד‪ ,‬יכול להיות שאני‬ ‫אוהב עוד ענינים אחרים או‬ ‫בני אדם אחרים‪ ,‬אבל אם‬ ‫אני מצרף היראה‪ ,‬שאני ירא‬ ‫מפניו—וגם האהבה שאני‬ ‫אוהבו‪ ,‬בודאי אני נזהר שלא‬ ‫לאהוב לשום דבר כלל‪ ,‬ואי‬ ‫אפשר שתחול עליו אהבה‬ ‫אחרת‪ ,‬בפרט מה שהוא נגד‬ ‫רצון האוהב‪ .‬אם כן מזה‬ ‫היראה—נשלמת האהבה‪.‬‬ ‫וכן מדת היראה לבדה‪ ,‬היא‬ ‫התרחקות כנזכר לעיל‪ ,‬אי‬ ‫אפשר כי אם בהתצטרפות‬ ‫מדת אהבה‪ ,‬לכסוף תמיד‬ ‫לקרב עצמו אליו‪—71‬ולרחק‬

‫‪71‬‬

‫עייו שם‪ ,‬בבעש”ט‪ ,‬צאוות‬

‫מה שהוא נגד רצונו יתברך‪,‬‬ ‫נמצא ששניהם יחדיו יכונו‪,‬‬ ‫ובזה נשלמה העבודה תמה—‬ ‫ביראה ואהבה שלימה‪.‬‬ ‫אך זהו עדיין במדות וזמן—‬ ‫שיש בחינות יום ולילה‪ ,‬אך מי‬ ‫שזוכה לעלות בהר הו’יה—‬ ‫במדות העליונים שהוא למעלה‬ ‫מהזמן‪ ,‬שם אין קביעות‪ ,‬כי אם‬ ‫‪72‬‬ ‫“וְ ַה ַחּיֹות ָרצֹוא וָ ׁשֹוב”!‬ ‫וכשזוכה עוד‪ ,‬נעשה זה כמו‬ ‫קביעות‪ ,‬ומשיג יותר למעלה‬ ‫בהירות עליון ברצוא ושוב‬ ‫למטה‪ .‬וכן על זה הדרך‪ ,‬כל‬ ‫ימיו הולך מדרגא אל דרגא‪,‬‬ ‫ומה שמשיג יותר—נעשה‬ ‫לו המושג הראשון לבחינת‬ ‫קביעות‪ ,‬דהיינו‪ :‬שכבר קבע‬ ‫בלבו—והוריד האור למטה‬ ‫בתוך המדות והזמן‪.‬‬ ‫וזה בחינת‪“ :‬בין השמשות‬ ‫‪73‬‬ ‫כהרף עין זה נכנס וזה יוצא”‬ ‫ודי למבינים‪ ,‬מחמת שהוא‬ ‫למעלה מן המדות והזמן‪ ,‬אי‬ ‫אפשר לקרוא שם בחינת‪:‬‬ ‫‪74‬‬ ‫“יֹום וָ לַ יְ לָ ה ל ֹא יִ ְׁשּבֹתּו”‬ ‫בקביעות‪ ,‬כי אם מאיר‬ ‫הבהירות ושוקע—בבחינת בין‬ ‫השמשות‪.‬‬

‫הרי”בש‪ ,‬ה’‪ ,‬י”א‪ ,‬וגם בר’ דב באר‪,‬‬ ‫המגיד ממזריץ‪ ,‬מגיד דבריו ליעקב‪,‬‬ ‫סימן קג”ד וכו’‬ ‫‪“ 72‬וְ ַה ַחּיֹות ָרצֹוא וָ ׁשֹוב ּכְ ַמ ְר ֵאה‬ ‫ַה ָּבזָ ק‪( ”:‬יחזקאל א’‪ :‬י”ד)‬ ‫‪73‬‬

‫בבלי ברכות ב’ ע”ב‬

‫‪“ 74‬עֹד ּכָ ל יְ ֵמי ָה ָא ֶרץ זֶ ַרע וְ ָקצִ יר‬ ‫וְ קֹר וָ חֹם וְ ַקיִ ץ וָ ח ֶֹרף וְ יֹום וָ לַ יְ לָ ה ל ֹא‬ ‫יִ ְׁשּבֹתּו‪( ”:‬בראשית ח’‪ :‬כ”ב)‬

‫ז‬

‫ושם מחבר מדת יום בלילה‬ ‫ולילה ביום—זיווג שלם‪ ,‬וזה‬ ‫מדת הצדיקים המחברים‬ ‫השגה‬ ‫המדות—בהשיגם‬ ‫“ּב ַהר יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫העליונה בעלותם ְ‬ ‫יֵ ָר ֶאה”‪ 75‬ועל כל פנים מהפכים‬ ‫‪76‬‬ ‫מדת הדין למדת הרחמים‪.‬‬ ‫ועל כן מובא בגמרא ש”מעלה‬ ‫עליו כאלו נעשה שותף‬ ‫להקדש ברוך הוא במעשה‬ ‫בראשית”‪ 77,‬ומה היה מעשה‬ ‫בראשית‪ ,‬כמאמר חכמיננו‬ ‫זכרונם לברכה‪“ 78‬שרצה‬ ‫הקדוש ברוך הוא לברוא את‬ ‫העולם במדת הדין וראה שאין‬ ‫העולם מתקיים עמד ושיתף‬ ‫מדת הרחמים למדת הדין”‪,‬‬ ‫כמו שאמרו רבותינו זכרונם‬ ‫“ּביֹום עֲ ׂשֹות‬ ‫לברכה על פסוק‪ְ :‬‬ ‫ֹלהים”‪.79‬‬ ‫יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱא ִ‬ ‫נמצא כשהצדיק מקשר עצמו‬ ‫בהשגה עליונה למעלה מן‬ ‫המדות‪ ,‬שם נעשה יחוד גמור‪,‬‬ ‫ומשתף מדת הרחמים למדת‬ ‫הדין—ונעשה כולו רחמים‪,‬‬ ‫ובזה יוכל לתקן הכל ברגע אחד‬ ‫כהרף עין‪ ,‬וזהו נקרא‪“ :‬תשועת‬ ‫הו’יה”‪ ,‬שהוא מדת הרחמים‪,‬‬ ‫“כהרף עין”‪.‬‬

‫‪“ 75‬וַ ּיִ ְק ָרא ַא ְב ָר ָהם ֵׁשם ַה ָּמקֹום ַההּוא‬ ‫יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה יִ ְר ֶאה ֲא ֶׁשר יֵ ָא ֵמר ַהּיֹום ְּב ַהר יְ הֹ‪-‬‬ ‫וָ ה יֵ ָר ֶאה‪( ”:‬בראשית כ”ב‪ :‬י”ד)‬ ‫‪76‬‬

‫בראשית רבה ל”ג‪ :‬ד’‬

‫‪77‬‬

‫בבלי שבת קי”ט ע”ב‬

‫‪78‬‬

‫פסיקתא רבתי מ”א‪ :‬ב’‬

‫“אּלֶ ה תֹולְ דֹות ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם וְ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫‪ֵ 79‬‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ‫ְּב ִה ָּב ְר ָאם ְּביֹום ֲעׂשֹות יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱא ִ‬ ‫ֶא ֶרץ וְ ָׁש ָמיִ ם‪( ”:‬בראשית ב’‪ :‬ד’)‬

‫ו‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫חול יש בהן צדק‪ ,‬צדקות הו’יה‬ ‫וכוונה רצויה אליו יתברך‪ ,‬הן‬ ‫דברי תורה‪.‬‬ ‫“אדֹנָ י ְׂש ָפ ַתי‬ ‫וזה פירוש הפסוק‪ֲ :‬‬ ‫ִּת ְפ ָּתח”‪ 54,‬כשיתבונן האדם‬ ‫בעיקר בריאת העולם—ושהכל‬ ‫ברא לכבודו‪ ,‬וממשיך עליו‬ ‫חיות הקודש בהשתלשלות‬ ‫מעולם לעולם‪ ,‬והחיות מדבר‬ ‫מתוך גרונו—זהו ש”פותח‬ ‫שפתיו”‪.‬‬ ‫ויכול לדבר ולבוא אל שורש‬ ‫הדברות שדבר הקדוש ברוך‬ ‫הוא—“אנֹכִ י” ו”ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫לְ ָך”‪ 55‬בדיבור אחד‪ ,‬שכולל‬ ‫‪56‬‬ ‫בזה כל התורה כולה שה[י]א‬ ‫משורש נשמתו‪ ,‬ושהוא חיות‬ ‫כל העולמות‪.‬‬ ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא” ברא הקדוש‬ ‫“ּב ַ‬ ‫כי ְ‬ ‫“עָ לְ ָמא”‪,‬‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫ברוך‬ ‫ובשביל ישראל שנקראו‬ ‫ראשית ולכבודו ברא על שם‬ ‫כבוד מלכותו‪ 58,‬ונתן בכח‬ ‫האדם שיוכל לבוא בדבורו‬ ‫לשורשו—“ּב ְד ַבר יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ָׁש ַמיִ ם‬ ‫ִ‬

‫‪57‬‬

‫“אדֹנָ י ְׂש ָפ ַתי ִּת ְפ ָּתח ִּופי יַ ּגִ יד‬ ‫‪ֲ 54‬‬ ‫ְּת ִהּלָ ֶתָך‪( ”:‬תהלים נ”א‪ :‬י”ז)‬ ‫ֹלהיָך ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫“אנֹכִ י יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱא ֶ‬ ‫‪ָ 55‬‬ ‫אתיָך ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמצְ ַריִ ם ִמ ֵּבית ֲע ָב ִדים‪:‬‬ ‫הֹוצֵ ִ‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים ֲא ֵח ִרים ַעל ָּפנָ י‪”:‬‬ ‫ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה לְ ָך ֱאל ִ‬ ‫(שמות כ’‪ :‬ב’‪-‬ג’)‬ ‫‪56‬‬

‫שה(ו)א‬

‫‪“ 57‬זַ ּכָ ִאין ִאיּנּון ּכָ ל ִאיּנּון ְּד ִמ ְׁש ַּת ְּדלֵ י‬ ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא‪ְּ ,‬בגִ ין ְּדכַ ד ְּב ָרא ֻק ְד ָׁשא ְּב ִריְך‬ ‫ְּב ַ‬ ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא‬ ‫הּוא ָעלְ ָמא‪ִ ,‬א ְס ַּתּכַ ל ָּבּה ְּב ַ‬ ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא ִא ְת ְּב ֵרי‬ ‫ָּוב ָרא ָעלְ ָמא‪ְּ ,‬וב ַ‬ ‫אֹוקמּוּה‪ִּ ,‬דכְ ִתיב וָ ֶא ְהיֶ ה‬ ‫ָעלְ ָמא ּכְ ָמה ְּד ְ‬ ‫ֶאצְ לֹו ָאמֹון‪ַ ,‬אל ִּת ְק ֵרי ָאמֹון‪ֶ ,‬אּלָ א‬ ‫אּומן‪(”.‬זהר חלק ב’‪ :‬קס”א ע”א)‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫‪58‬‬

‫ויקרא רבה ל”ו‪ :‬ד’‬

‫נַ עֲ ׂשּו”‪.‬‬

‫‪59‬‬

‫והאדם כשהוא בבטן אמו‪,‬‬ ‫מלמדין אותו כל התורה כולה‬ ‫שהיא משורש נשמתו—מה‬ ‫שיכול להשיג‪ ,‬וכשהוא נולד‬ ‫נשכח ממנו הכל‪ 60.‬וזהו כל‬ ‫עבודתו בעולם הזה—עד‬ ‫שמשיג כל התורה כולה כפי‬ ‫שורש נשמתו‪ ,‬ושיזכך גופו‬ ‫בלתי להו’יה לבדו—שלא‬ ‫נברא כי אם לעשות רצון‬ ‫בוראו ויוצרו לכבודו‪.‬‬ ‫ויהיה דבורו קודש—שחיות‬ ‫הקדושה מדבר מתוך גרונו‪,‬‬ ‫ושיהיה דבורו דבוק לשורש‬ ‫חיות הדיבור שהוא דבר הו’יה‬ ‫“אנֹכִ י” ו“ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה לְ ָך”‪ 61‬שבו‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫נכלל כל התורה כולה‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו דברי המדרש‪ ,‬מה שנאמר‬ ‫לאברהם אבינו נאמר לבניו‪,‬‬ ‫“מי גֹוי ּגָ דֹול ֲא ֶׁשר לֹו‬ ‫שנאמר‪ִ :‬‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים ְקר ִֹבים ֵאלָ יו”‪ 62.‬כי כל‬ ‫ֱאל ִ‬ ‫אחד יכול להשיג בדיבורו—‬ ‫“אנֹכִ י”‪ 63‬ו”ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה‬ ‫לדברות ָ‬ ‫לְ ָך”‪ 64,‬ולהשיג כל התורה‬

‫רּוח‬ ‫“ּב ְד ַבר יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ָׁש ַמיִ ם נַ עֲ ׂשּו ְּוב ַ‬ ‫‪ִ 59‬‬ ‫ִּפיו ּכָ ל צְ ָב ָאם‪( ”:‬תהלים ל”ג‪ :‬ו’)‬ ‫‪60‬‬

‫בבלי נדה ל’ ע”ב‬

‫ֹלהיָך ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫“אנֹכִ י יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱא ֶ‬ ‫‪ָ 61‬‬ ‫אתיָך ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמצְ ַריִ ם ִמ ֵּבית עֲ ָב ִדים‪:‬‬ ‫הֹוצֵ ִ‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים ֲא ֵח ִרים עַ ל ָּפנָ י‪”:‬‬ ‫ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה לְ ָך ֱאל ִ‬ ‫(שמות כ’‪ :‬ב’‪-‬ג’)‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים‬ ‫‪ּ“ 62‬כִ י ִמי גֹוי ּגָ דֹול ֲא ֶׁשר לֹו ֱאל ִ‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הינּו ְּבכָ ל‬ ‫ְקר ִֹבים ֵאלָ יו ּכַ יהֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱאל ֵ‬ ‫ָק ְר ֵאנּו ֵאלָ יו‪( ”:‬דברים ד’‪ :‬ז’)‬ ‫ֹלהיָך ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫“אנֹכִ י יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱא ֶ‬ ‫‪ָ 63‬‬ ‫אתיָך ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמצְ ַריִ ם ִמ ֵּבית‬ ‫הֹוצֵ ִ‬ ‫ֲע ָב ִדים‪( ”:‬שמות כ’‪ :‬ב’)‬ ‫‪64‬‬

‫ֹ‪-‬הים ֲא ֵח ִרים עַ ל‬ ‫“ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה לְ ָך ֱאל ִ‬

‫משורשו—כל מה שידע בבטן‬ ‫אמו‪.‬‬ ‫וכן מה שאמר “וֶ ְהיֵ ה ְּב ָרכָ ה”‪,‬‬ ‫שהיא לשון בריכה—להמשיך‬ ‫עליו דברות הקדוש ברוך הוא‬ ‫כל התורה כולה ודוקא‪.‬‬

‫‪65‬‬

‫פרשת חיי שרה‬ ‫פתח הרב בפסוק‪“ :‬וַ יהֹ‪-‬‬ ‫‪66‬‬ ‫וָ ה ֵּב ַרְך ֶאת ַא ְב ָר ָהם ַּבּכֹל”‬ ‫ובביאור הפסוק‪“ :‬וְ ַא ְב ָר ָהם‬ ‫ֶּבן ְמ ַאת ָׁשנָ ה ְּב ִהּוָ לֶ ד לֹו ֵאת‬ ‫יִ צְ ָחק ְּבנֹו‪“ 67”:‬וַ ּיָ ָמל ַא ְב ָר ָהם‬ ‫‪68‬‬ ‫ֶאת יִ צְ ָחק ְּבנֹו ֶּבן ְׁשמֹנַ ת יָ ִמים”‬ ‫“א ֶׁשר ָּב ָרא‬ ‫[ו]להבין דבור‪ֲ :‬‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים לַ עֲ ׂשֹות”‪ 69‬הנה ידוע‬ ‫ֱאל ִ‬ ‫מה שנאמר‪“ :‬וְ ָהיָ ה יֹום ֶא ָחד‬ ‫הּוא יִ ּוָ ַדע לַ יהֹ‪-‬וָ ה ל ֹא יֹום וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫‪70‬‬ ‫לָ יְ לָ ה”‪.‬‬ ‫ָּפנָ י‪( ”:‬שמות כ’‪ :‬ג’)‬ ‫‪“ 65‬וְ ֶאעֶ ְׂשָך לְ גֹוי ּגָ דֹול וַ ֲא ָב ֶרכְ ָך‬ ‫וַ ֲאגַ ְּדלָ ה ְׁש ֶמָך וֶ ְהיֵ ה ְּב ָרכָ ה‪( ”:‬בראשית‬ ‫י”ב‪ :‬ב’)‬ ‫‪“ 66‬וְ ַא ְב ָר ָהם זָ ֵקן ָּבא ַּבּיָ ִמים וַ יהֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ֵּב ַרְך ֶאת ַא ְב ָר ָהם ַּבּכֹל‪( ”:‬בראשית‬ ‫כ”ד‪ :‬א’)‬ ‫‪67‬‬

‫בראשית כ”א‪ :‬ה’‬

‫‪“ 68‬וַ ּיָ ָמל ַא ְב ָר ָהם ֶאת יִ צְ ָחק ְּבנֹו ֶּבן‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים‪”:‬‬ ‫ְׁשמֹנַ ת יָ ִמים ּכַ ֲא ֶׁשר צִ ּוָ ה אֹתֹו ֱאל ִ‬ ‫(בראשית כ”א‪ :‬ה’)‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים ֶאת יֹום ַה ְּׁש ִביעִ י‬ ‫‪“ 69‬וַ ָיְב ֶרְך ֱאל ִ‬ ‫וַ יְ ַק ֵּדׁש אֹתֹו ּכִ י בֹו ָׁש ַבת ִמּכָ ל ְמלַ אכְ ּתֹו‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים לַ עֲ ׂשֹות‪(”:‬בראשית‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ָּב ָרא ֱאל ִ‬ ‫ב’‪ :‬ג’)‬ ‫‪“ 70‬וְ ָהיָ ה יֹום ֶא ָחד הּוא יִ ּוָ ַדע לַ יהֹ‪-‬וָ ה‬ ‫ל ֹא יֹום וְ ל ֹא לָ יְ לָ ה וְ ָהיָ ה לְ עֵ ת עֶ ֶרב יִ ְהיֶ ה‬ ‫אֹור‪( ”:‬זכריה י”ד‪ ,‬ז’)‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫שנקראו ראשית‪ 41‬והקדוש‬ ‫ברוך הוא ברא העולם‬ ‫בהשתלשלות מעולם לעולם‬ ‫עד עולם העשיה‪ 42,‬וברא את‬ ‫האדם סוף מעשה במחשבה‬ ‫בֹודי‬ ‫תחלה‪ ,‬וגם כתיב‪“ :‬לִ כְ ִ‬ ‫אתיו‬ ‫ְּב ָר ִ‬ ‫יְ צַ ְר ִּתיו”‪—43‬שכל‬ ‫העולם לא נברא רק לכבודו‬ ‫יתברך‪ ,‬שיתגלה מלכותו עלינו‬ ‫‪44‬‬ ‫ואל‪-‬הותו יתברך שמו‪.‬‬ ‫ולהבין זה ידוע מה שאמרו‪:‬‬ ‫“באורייתא ברא קודשא‬ ‫בריך הוא עלמא”—בכ”ב‬ ‫“א ְתוָ ון”‪ 45‬שנשתלשל מעולם‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫לעולם ונברא האדם עם ה’‬ ‫מוצאות הפה—חי מדבר‪,‬‬ ‫כמבואר בספר יצירה “קבעם‬ ‫‪46‬‬ ‫בפה”‪.‬‬ ‫וכתיב‪“ :‬וְ ִד ַּב ְר ָּת ָּבם”‪ 47‬שאדם‬ ‫נברא לכבודו יתברך לעשות‬ ‫נחת רוח ליוצרו יתברך‬ ‫‪41‬‬

‫ויקרא רבה ל”ו‪ :‬ד’‬

‫‪ 42‬השווה‪ :‬על הכינויים השתלשלות‬ ‫ועולמות‪ ,‬עיין שם ברבי דב באר‪ ,‬מגיד‬ ‫דבריו ליעקב‪ ,‬סימן ע”ב‪ .‬ועיין שם‬ ‫כנזכר לעיל בפרשיות פנחס‪ ,‬ואתחנן‬ ‫על הרגשת קרבת הא‪-‬ל מצמצום לא‬ ‫כפשוטו‪ ,‬המאפשרת את העבודה‬ ‫שבגשמיות‪.‬‬ ‫בֹודי‬ ‫‪ּ“ 43‬כֹל ַהּנִ ְק ָרא ִב ְׁש ִמי וְ לִ כְ ִ‬ ‫אתיו יְ צַ ְר ִּתיו ַאף ֲע ִׂש ִיתיו” (ישעיה‬ ‫ְּב ָר ִ‬ ‫מ”ג‪ :‬ז’)‬ ‫‪ 44‬השווה‪“ :‬ועולם הזה צורך גבוה‬ ‫כי אין מלך בלא עם”‪ ,‬עיין שם ברבי‬ ‫דב באר‪ ,‬המגיד ממזריץ‪ ,‬מגיד דבריו‬ ‫ליעקב‪ ,‬סימן קי”ח‪.,‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬

‫זהר חלק א’‪ ,‬ר”ד ע”א‬

‫‪46‬‬

‫ספר יצירה פ”ב מ”ג‬

‫‪“ 47‬וְ ִׁשּנַ נְ ָּתם לְ ָבנֶ יָך וְ ִד ַּב ְר ָּת ָּבם‬ ‫ְּב ִׁש ְב ְּתָך ְּב ֵב ֶיתָך ְּובלֶ כְ ְּתָך ַב ֶּד ֶרְך ְּוב ָׁשכְ ְּבָך‬ ‫קּומָך‪( ”:‬דברים ו’‪ :‬ז’)‬ ‫ְּוב ֶ‬

‫ויתעלה—בדברי תורה ותפלה‬ ‫שבח והודיה להקדוש ברוך‬ ‫הוא‪.‬‬ ‫אחר שהבחירה ביד האדם‪,‬‬ ‫ויצר לבו רע מנעוריו‪ ,‬ויכול‬ ‫להשתמש בהו’יה מוצאות‬ ‫הפה—דברי הבאי ולשון הרע‬ ‫ורכילות ודברי מחלוקת‪ ,‬או‬ ‫להשתמש בדיבורו בשאר כל‬ ‫המדות רעות חס ושלום‪ .‬ועל‬ ‫זה נאמר‪ָּ “ :‬וב ַח ְר ָּת ַּב ַחּיִ ים”‪—48‬‬ ‫שיבחר דרך החיים‪ ,‬שזה חיות‬ ‫כל העולמות שבשביל זה נברא‬ ‫העולם‪.‬‬ ‫ולזה אמרו בגמרא על רב שלא‬ ‫שח שיחת חולין מימיו‪ 49,‬וכי‬ ‫אפשר שלא דבר מענין זה‬ ‫העולם כלל‪ ,‬הלא בן אדם הוא‬ ‫והיה צריך לאכול ולשתות‬ ‫ושאר צרכי הגוף ההכרחי‪.‬‬ ‫רק האמת הוא‪ :‬שהעיקר הולך‬ ‫אחר כוונת הלב הן הן הדברים‪,‬‬ ‫ואפילו כשמדבר ושח שיחת‬ ‫חולין‪ ,‬וכל כוונתו בלתי להו’יה‬ ‫לבדו‪ ,‬רק מה שצריך לקיום‬ ‫הגוף‪ ,‬וכבר נשתעבד גופו ואינו‬ ‫יכול לזוז ימין ושמאל דבר‬ ‫שהוא נגד רצונו יתברך—רק‬ ‫לעשות נחת רוח ליוצרו שלכך‬ ‫נברא‪ ,‬ואין זה שיחת חולין‬ ‫כלל—הכל לשון קודש הוא‪.‬‬

‫ה‬

‫וזה פירוש מאמר רבותינו‬ ‫זכרונם לברכה‪“ :‬לעולם יעשה‬ ‫אדם עצמו אלם יכול אף בדברי‬ ‫תורה כן תלמוד לומר ‘צֶ ֶדק‬ ‫ְּת ַד ֵּברּון’‪ 51”50.‬והנה אדם נברא‬ ‫חי מדבר‪ ,‬אם כן למה יעשה‬ ‫עצמו אלם‪ ,‬אלא שיטהר גופו‬ ‫כל כך שאפילו בדברי עולם‬ ‫הזה יכול לדבר‪ ,‬רק שעיקר‬ ‫כוונתו יהיה לשם שמים—‬ ‫לעשות רצון קונו‪ ,‬וכשהוא‬ ‫להנאת גופו אינו יכול לדבר‬ ‫כלל‪ ,‬כמו שהוא אלם ממש—‬ ‫ואינו יכול להוציא שום דיבור‬ ‫רע מפיו‪ ,‬כי כבר נשתעבד‬ ‫גופו לזה—וכל חיות הדיבור‬ ‫הוא לפאר יוצרו על שם כבוד‬ ‫מלכותו‪ ,‬ולא נשאר חיות בפיו‬ ‫להוציא שום דבר רע‪ ,‬ועל זה‬ ‫הוא כאלם ממש—כאילו אינו‬ ‫חי מדבר‪.‬‬ ‫אבל על כל פנים [מדבר]‬ ‫בשיחת חולין שהוא לצורך‬ ‫גופו‪ ,‬ודברי עולם הזה—שכל‬ ‫כוונתו בזה לשם שמים‪ ,‬ובאותן‬ ‫הדיבורים הוא דבוק ביוצרו‪,‬‬ ‫והן הן דברי תורה‪.‬‬ ‫ולזה אמרו יכול אף דברי תורה‬ ‫כן שהשתיקה מדה טובה‪,‬‬ ‫‪53‬‬ ‫תלמוד לומר‪“ 52‬צֶ ֶדק ְּת ַד ֵּברּון”‬ ‫אם בכל הדיבורים אפילו של‬ ‫“ה ֻא ְמנָ ם ֵאלֶ ם צֶ ֶדק ְּת ַד ֵּברּון‬ ‫‪ַ 50‬‬ ‫יׁש ִרים ִּת ְׁש ְּפטּו ְּבנֵ י ָא ָדם‪( ”:‬תהלים‬ ‫ֵמ ָ‬ ‫נ”ח‪ :‬ב’)‬

‫“העִ ד ִֹתי ָבכֶ ם ַהּיֹום ֶאת ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם‬ ‫‪ַ 48‬‬ ‫וְ ֶאת ָה ָא ֶרץ ַה ַחּיִ ים וְ ַה ָּמוֶ ת נָ ַת ִּתי לְ ָפנֶ יָך‬ ‫ַה ְּב ָרכָ ה וְ ַה ְּקלָ לָ ה ָּוב ַח ְר ָּת ַּב ַחּיִ ים לְ ַמעַ ן‬ ‫ִּת ְחיֶ ה ַא ָּתה וְ זַ ְרעֶ ָך‪( ”:‬דברים ל’‪ :‬י”ט)‬

‫‪( 52‬אלם‪ ,‬שיהיה אלם שאינו יכול‬ ‫להוציא מפיו שום דבר שאינו מתוקן)‬

‫‪ 49‬מובא ברמב”ם‪ ,‬משנה תורה‪,‬‬ ‫הלכות דעות פרק ב’ הלכה ד’‪ ,‬ועיין‬ ‫שם בבבלי עבודה זרה י”ט ע”ב‬

‫“ה ֻא ְמנָ ם ֵאלֶ ם צֶ ֶדק ְּת ַד ֵּברּון‬ ‫‪ַ 53‬‬ ‫יׁש ִרים ִּת ְׁש ְּפטּו ְּבנֵ י ָא ָדם‪( ”:‬תהלים‬ ‫ֵמ ָ‬ ‫נ”ח‪ :‬ב’)‬

‫‪51‬‬

‫בבלי חולין פ”ט ע”א‬

‫ד‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫וכו’‪ 25 .‬ועל פי פשוט כמאמר‬ ‫חכמינו זכרונם לברכה‪“ :‬שכל‬ ‫נימא ונימא”‪ 26,‬דהיינו‪ :‬שכל‬ ‫אחד ואחד מאיר ממקומו‬ ‫ומלובש בשחרות זה‪.‬‬ ‫וזהו‪“ :‬שבים נדמה להם כבחור‬ ‫ובמעמד הר סיני כזקן”‪ ,‬משום‬ ‫שלא היו יכולים לסבול‪ ,‬הלביש‬ ‫להם בכמה לבושים—באש‬ ‫שחורה על גבי אש לבנה‪,‬‬ ‫ומהלבושים יבין וישכיל—‬ ‫לדעת פנימיות הדברים וסודן‪.‬‬ ‫ועוד יש לנו ללמוד מאברהם‬ ‫אבינו עליו השלום‪ ,‬שהיה עדיין‬ ‫קודם מתן תורה‪ ,‬עד כמה היה‬ ‫מחפש בחפש מחופש בעצמו‪,‬‬ ‫בכל עת ובכל שעה—בכל‬ ‫מדותיו ובכל הנהגת העולם‬ ‫ערב ובוקר וצהרים‪.‬‬ ‫עד שזכה ומצא בעצמו‬ ‫במוחו ובלבבו‪ ,‬וכליותיו‬ ‫[ועשתונותיו]‪ 27‬יעצוהו לדעת‬ ‫את הו’יה—להבין ולהשיג‬ ‫את כל התורה כולה‪ ,‬עם כל‬ ‫סודותיה וכל דקדוקיה של‬ ‫סופרים וחכמים ואפילו עירוב‬ ‫תבשילין כמאמר רבותינו‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫זכרונם לברכה‪.‬‬ ‫וכנזכר בזהר הקדש‬

‫‪29‬‬

‫“הלֹוְך‬ ‫ָ‬

‫ַהּנֶ גְ ָּבה”‪—30‬ותקל‬ ‫וְ נָ סֹועַ‬ ‫בחקלתא והבין כל המחשבות‬ ‫וחיות של כל הארציות—‬ ‫ומעלות וקדושת החיות‬ ‫והמשכת ארץ הקדושה‪ .‬כמה‬ ‫טרח ונתייגע לבוא לעומקו של‬ ‫דבר‪ ,‬עד שהבטיח לו הקדוש‬ ‫“אל ָה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫ברוך הוא‪ֶ :‬‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫ַא ְר ֶאּךָ ”‪.‬‬ ‫ואם באברהם אבינו עליו‬ ‫השלום כן‪ ,‬אנו על אחת כמה‬ ‫וכמה שיש לנו לטרוח ולייגע‬ ‫עצמנו בכל נפשו וכוחנו—‬ ‫תֹורה‬ ‫לחפש ב”נֵ ר ִמצְ וָ ה וְ ָ‬ ‫אֹור”‪ ,32‬שיזכנו הקדוש ברוך‬ ‫הוא להבין עומקו של דברו‬ ‫ופנימיותו כמאמר רבותינו‬ ‫זכרונו לברכה כמה פעמים‬ ‫‪33‬‬ ‫“יגעתי ומצאתי תאמין”‪,‬‬ ‫ונזכה להשיג כל אחד ואחד‬ ‫לפי ערכו ובחינתו‪ ,‬עד ביאת‬ ‫משיח צדקנו במהרה בימינו‬ ‫אמן סלה‪.‬‬ ‫פתח הרב במדרש‪ ,‬וזה‬ ‫לשון המדרש‪ 34:‬מה שנאמר‬ ‫לאברהם אבינו נאמר לבניו‪,‬‬ ‫באברהם כתיב‪“ :‬וְ ֶאעֶ ְׂשָך‬ ‫‪35‬‬ ‫לְ גֹוי ּגָ דֹול‪ ...‬וֶ ְהיֵ ה ְּב ָרכָ ה”‪,‬‬ ‫‪“ 30‬וַ ּיִ ַּסע ַא ְב ָרם ָהלֹוְך וְ נָ סֹועַ ַהּנֶ גְ ָּבה”‬ ‫(בראשית י”ב‪ :‬ט)‬ ‫ֹאמר יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֶאל ַא ְב ָרם לֶ ְך לְ ָך‬ ‫‪“ 31‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ּומ ֵּבית ָא ִביָך ֶאל‬ ‫ּומּמֹולַ ְד ְּתָך ִ‬ ‫ֵמ ַא ְרצְ ָך ִ‬ ‫ָה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶׁשר ַא ְר ֶאּךָ ‪( ”:‬בראשית י”ב‪:‬‬ ‫א’) עיין שם כנזכר בזהר‪.‬‬

‫‪“ 25‬וְ כָ ל נִ ָימא וְ נִ ָימא ִאיהּו ָעלְ ָמא‬ ‫ְׁשלֵ ָימא” (זהר חדש חלק ב’‪ ,‬ל”ד‬ ‫ע”א)‬

‫‪32‬‬

‫‪26‬‬

‫בבלי בבא בתרא ט”ז ע”א‬

‫‪33‬‬

‫‪27‬‬

‫(ומחשבותיו)‬

‫בבלי מגילה ו’ ע”ב‬

‫‪34‬‬

‫‪28‬‬

‫בבלי יומא כ”ח ע”ב‬

‫תנחומא לך לך‪ ,‬ט’‬

‫‪29‬‬

‫זהר חלק א’‪ :‬ע”ח ע”א‬

‫תֹורה אֹור וְ ֶד ֶרְך‬ ‫“ּכִ י נֵ ר ִמצְ וָ ה וְ ָ‬ ‫מּוסר‪( ”:‬משלי ו’‪:‬כ”ג)‬ ‫ַחּיִ ים ּתֹוכְ חֹות ָ‬

‫‪“ 35‬וְ ֶאעֶ ְׂשָך לְ גֹוי ּגָ דֹול וַ ֲא ָב ֶרכְ ָך‬ ‫וַ ֲאגַ ְּדלָ ה ְׁש ֶמָך וֶ ְהיֵ ה ְּב ָרכָ ה‪( ”:‬בראשית‬

‫ובישראל כתיב‪ּ“ :‬כִ י ִמי גֹוי ּגָ דֹול‬ ‫ֹלהים ְקר ִֹבים ֵאלָ יו”‪,‬‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר לֹו ֱא ִ‬ ‫וכתיב‪”:‬יְב ֶרכְ ָך יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה וְ יִ ְׁש ְמ ֶרָך”‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫‪ 37‬עד כאן לשון המדרש‪.‬‬ ‫‪36‬‬

‫“אנֹכִ י” ו”ל ֹא‬ ‫עוד פתח בפסוק‪ָ :‬‬ ‫יִ ְהיֶ ה לְ ָך”‪—38‬מפי הגבורה‬ ‫שמענום‪ 39‬והנה בתוך אלו‬ ‫שני הדברות נכלל כל התורה‬ ‫כולה—רמ”ח מצות עשה‬ ‫ושס”ה מצות לא תעשה‪ ,‬וכל‬ ‫התורה שבעל פה וכל מה‬ ‫שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לחדש עד‬ ‫ימות המשיח וכל גנזין ורזין‬ ‫דאורייתא—הכל בזה נכלל‪.‬‬ ‫מה שאינו מושג לגשם—‬ ‫איך הכל נכלל בב’ דברים‪,‬‬ ‫מה ששום נברא אינו יכול‬ ‫להשיג—איך הכל נכלל בב’‬ ‫דברים‪ .‬ולכאורה למה עשה כן‬ ‫הקדוש ברוך הוא‪ ,‬ליתן תורה‬ ‫לעם קדוש ישראל—לכלול‬ ‫הכל בב’ דברים ששום נברא‬ ‫שבעולם לא יוכל להשיג ולהבין‬ ‫דבר זה‪ ,‬ופליאה הוא זה‪.‬‬ ‫אׁשית‬ ‫“ּב ֵר ִ‬ ‫והנה הכלל הוא‪ְ :‬‬ ‫ישראל‬ ‫ָּב ָרא”‪—40‬בשביל‬ ‫י”ב‪ :‬ב’)‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ‫‪ּ“ 36‬כִ י ִמי גֹוי ּגָ דֹול ֲא ֶׁשר לֹו ֱא ִ‬ ‫ֹלהינּו ְּבכָ ל ָק ְר ֵאנּו‬ ‫ְקר ִֹבים ֵאלָ יו ּכַ יהֹוָ ה ֱא ֵ‬ ‫ֵאלָ יו‪( :‬דברים ד’‪ :‬ז’)‬ ‫‪37‬‬

‫במדבר ו’‪ :‬כ”ד‬

‫ֹלהיָך ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫“אנֹכִ י יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה ֱא ֶ‬ ‫‪ָ 38‬‬ ‫אתיָך ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמצְ ַריִ ם ִמ ֵּבית עֲ ָב ִדים‪:‬‬ ‫הֹוצֵ ִ‬ ‫ֹ‪-‬הים ֲא ֵח ִרים עַ ל ָּפנָ י‪”:‬‬ ‫ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה לְ ָך ֱאל ִ‬ ‫(שמות כ’‪ :‬ב’‪-‬ג’)‬ ‫‪39‬‬

‫בבלי מכות כ”ד‬

‫ֹ‪-‬הים ֵאת‬ ‫אׁשית ָּב ָרא ֱאל ִ‬ ‫“ּב ֵר ִ‬ ‫‪ְ 40‬‬ ‫ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם וְ ֵאת ָה ָא ֶרץ‪( ”:‬בראשית‬ ‫א’‪ :‬א’)‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫הנה להבין דבר זה‪ ,‬בהלביש‬ ‫הענין בדברים פשוטים לשכך‬ ‫האוזן‪ ,‬וזה אחד מי”ג עיקרים‪:‬‬ ‫“אין לו דמות הגוף ואינו גוף”‪,‬‬ ‫וכיצד אומר בלשון הפסוק כן ‪.‬‬ ‫ועוד אמרו חכמינו זכרונם‬ ‫לברכה‪“ :‬שעל הים נראה להם‬ ‫הקדוש ברוך הוא כבחור יוצא‬ ‫במלחמה ועל הר סיני נראה‬ ‫להם כזקן מלא רחמים יושב‬ ‫בישיבה”‪ 16 ,‬להבין כל זה אפילו‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫בבחינת קטנה [כי] ידוע‬ ‫ליודעי חכמת נסתרת‪ .‬כמה‬ ‫רזין דרזין כלולין בזה ‪.‬‬ ‫אבל לפרש על פי פשוט—‬ ‫שיבינו אפילו קטני הדעת‪,‬‬ ‫דהנה איתא‪“ :‬שהקדוש ברוך‬ ‫הוא נתן התורה באש שחורה‬ ‫על גבי אש לבנה”‪ 18,‬והנה ידוע‬ ‫על פי האמור בזהר הקדוש זהו‬ ‫“ׁש ֲחרּות”‪ 19,‬וזהו בחינת‬ ‫בחינת ַ‬ ‫לבנונית בלובן עילאה קדישא‪.‬‬ ‫אך להסביר הענין‪ ,‬דהנה “אש‬ ‫לבנה”—היא הפנימיות‪ ,‬ועל‬ ‫גביו אש שחורה שנקראת‬ ‫חיצונית‪ ,‬שהוא לבוש לפנימיות‬ ‫והתגלותו‪:‬‬ ‫ועל פי מה שאמרו רבותינו‬ ‫זכרונם לברכה בגמרא‪:‬‬ ‫“לעולם ישנה אדם לתלמידו‬ ‫בדרך קצרה”‪ 20,‬ולא נתן שיעור‬ ‫לדבר—איך יקצר ואיך יאריך‬ ‫‪16‬‬

‫מכילתא‪ ,‬יתרו כ’‪ :‬ב’‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫(כ)ידוע‬

‫‪18‬‬

‫תנחומא בראשית‪ ,‬א’‬

‫‪19‬‬

‫זהר חלק ב’ פ”א ע”ב‬

‫‪20‬‬

‫בבלי פסחים ג’ ע”ב‬

‫שישנה עמו מעט או הרבה‪.‬‬

‫ג‬

‫יָ צְ ָאה ְב ַד ְּברֹו”‪—22,‬על זכור‬ ‫ושמור בדבור אחד נאמרו‪,‬‬ ‫וכן כל התורה כלולה באלו‬ ‫הדברים‪.‬‬

‫‪23‬‬

‫ומן הסתם כך פירושו‪ :‬שמה‬ ‫שרצה לשנות לתלמידו‪,‬‬ ‫ילבישהו בדרך קצרה—בערך‬ ‫שדעתו משגת בהלבשת דבר‬ ‫גשמי‪ ,‬וזהו דרך קצרה‪ ,‬כדוגמת‬ ‫משל‪ ,‬הרב ששונה לתלמידו‬ ‫ששכלו קטן ורוצה להסביר לו‬ ‫דבר עמוק—מה שקט שכלו‬ ‫אינו משיג‪ ,‬צריך הרב להסביר‬ ‫לו בדרך משל בדבר גשמי‬ ‫ששכלו משיג‪ ,‬ועל ידי זה יוכל‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫גם כן להבין שהוא פנימיותו‪.‬‬ ‫והנה הרב שמסביר לתלמידו‬ ‫המשל הגשמי‪ ,‬אין דעתו‬ ‫כלל על זה המשל—כי אם‬ ‫על הנמשל [שהוא] שכל‬ ‫טוב‪ ,‬ומעמיק דעתו שיהיה‬ ‫מכוון דברי המשל הגשמי—‬ ‫להיכלל בתוכו הנמשל השכלי‬ ‫הדק‪ ,‬והתלמיד שומע דברי‬ ‫הרב—ומבין המשל‪ ,‬ובהמשך‬ ‫הדברים—יוכל להבין מעט‬ ‫מעט עיקר פנימיות הדבר‬ ‫שהיא הנמשל‪ ,‬שעל זה‬ ‫היה כונת הרב מתחלה‪ ,‬רק‬ ‫שהוכרח להלבישו בדבר גשמי‪.‬‬ ‫והנה כשהקדוש ברוך הוא רצה‬ ‫ליתן התורה הקדושה‪ ,‬בה כלל‬ ‫כל סודותיה ורזין דאורייתא וכל‬ ‫התורה כולה שבכתב ושבעל‬ ‫פה—הכל נכלל בעשרת‬ ‫הדברות‪ ,‬ולא יכלו הגופים של‬ ‫ישראל לסבול‪ ,‬וזהו‪“ :‬נַ ְפ ִׁשי‬ ‫‪ 21‬השווה‪ :‬משלי האב עם המשל‬ ‫“הרב ששונה לתלמידו ששכלו קטן”‬ ‫עיין שם ברבי דב באר‪ ,‬המגיד ממזריץ‪,‬‬ ‫מגיד דבריו ליעקב‪ ,‬סימנים א’‪ ,‬ק”א‪,‬‬ ‫קכ”ב‪.‬‬

‫מה עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא‬ ‫הוריד להם לישראל טל של‬ ‫תחיה‪ ,‬והוא על דרך שאמרו‬ ‫רבותינו זכרונם לברכה‪:‬‬ ‫“לעתיד לבוא בתחיית המתיה‬ ‫מעצם כשעורה שישאר‪,‬‬ ‫ממנו יתהוה כל הגוף‪ ,‬וזה‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫טל‪”.‬‬ ‫ה”שעורה”—נקרא‬ ‫והנה בזה השעורה נכלל כל‬ ‫הגוף ברמ”ח איבריו ושס”ה‬ ‫גידיו הכל נכללים בזה‪.‬‬ ‫וכן באופן זה הוריד להם‬ ‫הקדוש ברוך הוא—להלביש‬ ‫התורה בכמה לבושים בכדי‬ ‫שיוכלו לסבול ולהבין מעט‬ ‫מעט—עד שישיגו הכל בעולם‬ ‫הזה‪ ,‬כל אחד מישראל לפי‬ ‫ערכו‪.‬‬ ‫ּוּצֹותיו”—שהוא קצה‬ ‫“ק ָ‬ ‫וזהו‪ְ :‬‬ ‫הדבר ותכליתו‪ ,‬הוא מלבוש‬ ‫ב”ׁשחֹרֹות”‪ ,‬באש שחורה‪ ,‬ובו‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫“ּתלְ ַּתלִ ים”—שהוא תלי‬ ‫נכלל ַ‬ ‫תילים של הלכות וסודות ורזין‬ ‫הנכללים ונלבשים בשחרות זה‪,‬‬ ‫והפנימיות הוא הלבנונית—‬ ‫שהוא “שער רישיה” וכו’‪.‬‬ ‫וכמבואר בזוהר הקדוש‪“ :‬וְ כָ ל‬ ‫נִ ָימא וְ נִ ָימא” [היא חלולה]‬ ‫דֹודי ָח ַמק‬ ‫דֹודי וְ ִ‬ ‫“ּפ ַת ְח ִּתי ֲאנִ י לְ ִ‬ ‫‪ָ 22‬‬ ‫עָ ָבר נַ ְפ ִׁשי יָ צְ ָאה ְב ַד ְּברֹו ִּב ַּק ְׁש ִּתיהּו וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫אתיו וְ ל ֹא עָ נָ נִ י‪( ”:‬שיר‬ ‫אתיהּו ְק ָר ִ‬ ‫ְמצָ ִ‬ ‫השירים ה’‪ :‬ו’)‬ ‫‪23‬‬

‫בבלי ראש השנה כ”ז ע”א‬

‫‪24‬‬

‫בראשית רבה כ”ח‪ :‬ג’‬

‫ב‬

‫חסד לאברהם‬

‫פרשת לך לך‬ ‫ּומ ַקּלֶ לְ ָך‬ ‫“וַ ֲא ָב ְרכָ ה ְמ ָב ֲרכֶ יָך ְ‬ ‫ָאאֹר וְ נִ ְב ְרכּו ְבָך ּכֹל ִמ ְׁש ְּפחֹת‬ ‫ָה ֲא ָד ָמה‪ 2”:‬פתח הרב לדקדק‬ ‫“מ ָב ֲרכֶ יָך”—שהוא‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫במלת‬ ‫“ּומ ַקּלֶ לְ ָך” לשון‬ ‫לשון רבים‪ְ ,‬‬ ‫“אאֹר”‪,‬‬ ‫יחיד‪ .‬ועוד שינוי לשון ָ‬ ‫“ּומ ַקּלֶ לְ ָך ‘אקלל’“‪,‬‬ ‫ולא אמר ְ‬ ‫כדוגמת “’וַ ֲא ָב ְרכָ ה’ ְמ ָב ֲרכֶ יָך”‪.‬‬ ‫ונבאר על פי פשוט‪ ,‬דהנה‬ ‫בברכה אמר‪“ :‬וַ ֲא ָב ְרכָ ה” קודם‪,‬‬ ‫להקדים עליהם הברכה—‬ ‫קודם שיברכו‪ ,‬כלומר‪ :‬אף על‬ ‫פי שעדיין לא ברכו אלא שעלה‬ ‫במחשבתם לברך—מחשבה‬ ‫טובה הקדש ברוך הוא מצרף‬ ‫למעשה‪ 3,‬מה שאין כן במקללך‬ ‫שהיא מחשבה רעה—אינו‬ ‫מצרפה למעשה‪ ,‬כי אם דוקא‬ ‫אחר שיעשו מעשה‪.‬‬ ‫והנה מדת חסד לאברהם—‬ ‫“א ְב ָר ָהם א ֲֹה ִבי”‪ 4‬שהיה‬ ‫הנקרא ַ‬ ‫אוהב כל הברואים‪ ,‬אפילו‬ ‫ברע שבהם—היה מוצא איזה‬ ‫בחינה טובה לאהבה אותם‪,‬‬ ‫ובעונש הרעים לא היה רוצה‬ ‫כמאמר הכתוב‪ּ“ :‬גַ ם עֲ נֹוׁש‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫לַ ּצַ ִּדיק ל ֹא טֹוב‪”.‬‬ ‫וכן מצינו אפילו בבהמות‪,‬‬ ‫שלא רצו להיות לחלק הרע‪,‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫בראשית י”ב‪ :‬ג’‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫בבלי קדושין מ’ ע”א‬

‫‪“ 4‬וְ ַא ָּתה יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַע ְב ִּדי יַ ֲעקֹב ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫ְּב ַח ְר ִּתיָך זֶ ַרע ַא ְב ָר ָהם א ֲֹה ִבי” (ישעיהו‬ ‫מ”א‪ :‬ח’)‬ ‫‪ּ“ 5‬גַ ם ֲענֹוׁש לַ ּצַ ִּדיק ל ֹא טֹוב לְ ַהּכֹות‬ ‫נְ ִד ִיבים עַ ל י ֶֹׁשר‪( ”:‬משלי י”ז‪ :‬כ”ו)‬

‫כמו הפרים של אליהו זכור‬ ‫“ּב ֲחרּו לָ כֶ ם‬ ‫לטוב‪ ,‬שאמר‪ַ :‬‬ ‫ַה ָּפר ָה ֶא ָחד”‪ 6‬ואמרו רבינו‬ ‫זכרונם לברכה‪ :‬שלא רצה‬ ‫הפר לילך‪ 7,‬כלומר‪ :‬החיות‬ ‫שבפר—לא רצה להיות בחלק‬ ‫הרע‪ ,‬עד שאמר לו אליהו זכור‬ ‫לטוב שגם על ידו יתקדש שמו‬ ‫הגדול—שיראו החילוק מגורל‬ ‫הקדושה ‪.‬‬ ‫וכן על דרך זה הבטיח הקדש‬ ‫ברוך הוא לאברהם אבינו עליו‬ ‫העולם‬ ‫השלום—להמשיך‬ ‫אחריו‪ ,‬כי “וַ ֲא ָב ְרכָ ה”—הוא‬ ‫לשון [בריכה] והמשכה‪ ,‬ואם‬ ‫“מ ַקּלֶ לְ ָך”—הוא גם‬ ‫יהיה איזה ְ‬ ‫כן בשביל חפצו ורצונו שיתגדל‬ ‫ויתקדש שמו יתברך על ידי‬ ‫מפלתן של רשעים‪.‬‬ ‫“מ ַקּלֶ לְ ָך ָאאֹר”‪ ,‬מלת‬ ‫וזהו ְ‬ ‫“אאֹר” משתמש לתרי אפי‪:‬‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫לשון—ארה‪ ,‬ולשון—אורה‪,‬‬ ‫שעל ידי מפלת הרשע—יהיה‬ ‫אור לאחרים‪ ,‬לילך באור‬ ‫הו’יה אור דחיים‪[ .‬כי]‪ 8‬אפילו‬ ‫מי שהוא במדת אהבה‪ ,‬צריך‬ ‫להבחין במדה זו‪ ,‬ולצרף לה‬ ‫היראה ומדת הגבורה‪ ,‬שעל ידה‬ ‫יתאהב ויתקדש שמו יתברך—‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫כשיראו העולם מפלת הרשע‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫“וְ כָ ל ָהעָ ם יִ ְׁש ְמעּו וְ יִ ָראּו”‪.‬‬

‫ֹאמר ֵאלִ ּיָ הּו לִ נְ ִב ֵיאי ַה ַּבעַ ל ַּב ֲחרּו‬ ‫‪“ 6‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫לָ כֶ ם ַה ָּפר ָה ֶא ָחד וַ עֲ ׂשּו ִראׁשֹנָ ה ּכִ י ַא ֶּתם‬ ‫ֹלהיכֶ ם וְ ֵאׁש ל ֹא‬ ‫ָה ַר ִּבים וְ ִק ְראּו ְּב ֵׁשם ֱא ֵ‬ ‫ָת ִׂשימּו‪( ”:‬מלכים א’ י”א‪ :‬כ”ה)‬ ‫‪7‬‬

‫במדבר רבה כ”ג‪ :‬ט’‬

‫‪8‬‬

‫(וזהו)‬

‫‪9‬‬

‫(אחד)‬

‫‪10‬‬

‫“וְ כָ ל ָהעָ ם יִ ְׁש ְמעּו וְ יִ ָראּו וְ ל ֹא יְ זִ ידּון‬

‫וזהו‪“ :‬וְ נִ ְב ְרכּו ְבָך ּכֹל ִמ ְׁש ְּפחֹת‬ ‫ָה ֲא ָד ָמה”‪ ,‬שעל ידי מפלת‬ ‫הרשע‪ ,‬ימשכו אחריך אפילו‬ ‫אותן בני אדם המחוברים‬ ‫שוכני‬ ‫לאדמה—בארציות‪,‬‬ ‫בתי חומר בחומריות הגוף‬ ‫העב והגס‪ ,‬אשר לא ידעו ולא‬ ‫יבינו אור קדושת שמו יתברך‪,‬‬ ‫יתלהב ויתעורר לבם להמשיך‬ ‫אחריך‪ ,‬ויאמרו כולם‪“ :‬לְ כּו‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫וְ נֵ לְ כָ ה ְּבאֹור יְ הֹ‪-‬וָ ה‪”.‬‬ ‫והנה אמרו רבינו זכרונם‬ ‫לברכה‪ 12‬על פסוק “נַ ְפ ִׁשי יָ צְ ָאה‬ ‫ְב ַד ְּברֹו”‪ 13,‬זה מרמז על מתן‬ ‫תורה—שיצתה נשמתם עד‬ ‫שהוריד עליהם הקדוש ברוך‬ ‫הוא טל של תחיה ‪.‬‬ ‫ולהבין הענין מהו טל של‬ ‫ּוּצֹותיו‬ ‫“ק ָ‬ ‫תחיה‪ ,‬נקדים הפסוק‪ְ :‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫עֹורב”‪.‬‬ ‫ַּתלְ ַּתלִ ים ְׁשחֹרֹות ּכָ ֵ‬ ‫בּוׁשּה‬ ‫ופסוק אחר אומר‪“ :‬לְ ֵ‬ ‫אׁשּה ּכַ עֲ ַמר‬ ‫ּוׂשעַ ר ֵר ֵ‬ ‫ּכִ ְתלַ ג ִחּוָ ר ְ‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫נְ ֵקא”‪.‬‬

‫עֹוד‪( ”:‬דברים י”ז‪ :‬י”ג)‬ ‫“ּבית יַ עֲ קֹב לְ כּו וְ נֵ לְ כָ ה ְּבאֹור יְ הֹ‪-‬‬ ‫‪ֵ 11‬‬ ‫וָ ה‪( ”:‬ישעיה ב’‪ :‬ה’)‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫בבלי שבת פ”ח ע”ב‬

‫דֹודי ָח ַמק‬ ‫דֹודי וְ ִ‬ ‫“ּפ ַת ְח ִּתי ֲאנִ י לְ ִ‬ ‫‪ָ 13‬‬ ‫עָ ָבר נַ ְפ ִׁשי יָ צְ ָאה ְב ַד ְּברֹו ִּב ַּק ְׁש ִּתיהּו וְ ל ֹא‬ ‫אתיו וְ ל ֹא עָ נָ נִ י‪( ”:‬שיר‬ ‫אתיהּו ְק ָר ִ‬ ‫ְמצָ ִ‬ ‫השירים ה’‪ :‬ו’)‬ ‫ּוּצֹותיו ַּתלְ ַּתלִ ים‬ ‫‪“ 14‬רֹאׁשֹו ּכֶ ֶתם ָּפז ְק ָ‬ ‫עֹורב‪( ”:‬שיר השירים ה’‪,‬‬ ‫ְׁשחֹרֹות ּכָ ֵ‬ ‫י”א)‪ ,‬ופירש רש”י שם על פי פשוטו‬ ‫ועיין שם‪.‬‬ ‫“חזֵ ה ֲהוֵ ית עַ ד ִּדי כָ ְר ָסוָ ן ְר ִמיו‬ ‫‪ָ 15‬‬ ‫בּוׁשּה ּכִ ְתלַ ג ִחּוָ ר‬ ‫יֹומין יְ ִתב לְ ֵ‬ ‫וְ עַ ִּתיק ִ‬ ‫אׁשּה ּכַ עֲ ַמר נְ ֵקא ּכָ ְר ְסיֵ ּה‬ ‫ּוׂשעַ ר ֵר ֵ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ּלֹוהי נּור ָּדלִ ק‪”:‬‬ ‫ְׁש ִב ִיבין ִּדי נּור ּגַ לְ ּגִ ִ‬ ‫(דניאל ז’‪ :‬ט’)‬

‫‪Hebrew Critical Edition‬‬ ‫חסד לאברהם‬ ‫זה ספר אדם הגדול בענקים‬ ‫הוא הרב הקדוש אברהם‬ ‫סבא קדישא הכהן הגדול מקאליסק‬ ‫(נפטר בטבריה‪ ,‬יום ד’ שבט תק”ע)‬

‫המפורסם לארץ ולדרים לחד מן בני עליה‪ .‬אשר אור תורתו הופיע מעיר הקודש טבריא‬ ‫תוב”ב [ושם] מנוחתו כבוד‪ ,‬כי הובאו כתביו אלה למעזיבוז ליד מורנו אור עולם ר’ ברוך‬ ‫זללה”ה‬ ‫ומשם צוה ה’ עלי את הברכה‪ ,‬להעתיקם ולהאיר פני תבל‪ ,‬להטיב לטובים ולישרים בלבותם‪,‬‬ ‫כי יאמרו האח מצאנו אור‪ ,‬כי הטיב אברהם את חסדו אתנו‪ ,‬לנהלנו במעגלי צדק‪ ,‬ולאורו‬ ‫נסעה ונלכה לפני אלהים באור החיים‪ ,‬לפרט יראת‪ 1‬ה’ לחיים‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫ההדגשה מרמזת על שנת הדפסת הספר = תשי”א‬